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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context: edit-access requirement, API-key scope `wiki:pages:read`, and the semantic meaning of the link ('anyone with the URL can read just that one page'). It omits failure modes (e.g. behaviour when sharing is disabled or the page is missing), which keeps it below 5.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape, the scoping distinction, and the auth prerequisites in one tight paragraph. The DTO field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned PublicShareInfoDTO fields, and it covers permission requirements and API-key scope. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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%, so spaceKey, slug, account and workspace are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for these parameters (e.g. slug derivation, case sensitivity of spaceKey), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the public SHARE-LINK status for a single page') and explicitly scopes it as a per-page share link rather than a space-wide setting. It names the sibling it is distinct from (wiki_set_public_settings), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: read a single page's share-link state, distinct from publishing a whole space via wiki_set_public_settings, and requires edit access. It does not point to wiki_enable_page_share/wiki_disable_page_share for mutation, nor does it state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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