Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses what the shared page reveals (question, sentiment split, panel size, three quotes), what it never reveals (full results, cost, who ran it), that it is free, that it is idempotent ('Asking again returns the same link'), and that it is revocable via the web app.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and keeps every sentence informative, including the return shape in lieu of an output schema. Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape ({ sim_id, share_url }) plus the privacy/idempotency/revocability semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single required param, so the schema already documents sim_id. The description's phrase 'a completed study you ran' reinforces the constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the public share link for a completed study') and immediately distinguishes it from the web app's general report by describing what the page contains vs. what it withholds. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_report_link and get_simulation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'Share only when the user wants the study public' and notes the link can be turned off from the study's page. It also constrains input to 'a completed study you ran.' It does not name a competing sibling by name, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.