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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further with the access model (no credential, opens only for the workspace owner signed in to the console, grants nobody else access) and the live-vs-sealed distinction between workspace and snapshot views. 'Not metered' is extra operational context beyond the annotations; the 'Writes nothing. Read-only' clause is redundant repetition of readOnlyHint.

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 core action, then the modes, then the security caveat, then the safety tail. Dense but every clause carries information; the only waste is the 'Writes nothing. Read-only and not metered' tail, where the first half restates the annotation.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description still tells the agent the payload is a URL to hand to the user. For a three-parameter, read-only link generator the coverage of modes, provenance, and access semantics is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the mutual exclusivity as a mode choice and clarifies that passing workspace_tag alone yields the whole-workspace view. It also documents where each id comes from, reinforcing the schema's provenance hints.

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 ('Gives the user a link to see this workspace') and immediately enumerates the three scopes the link can take. It names the sibling tools that supply the ids (list_charts, list_book_snapshots), so an agent can place it precisely among the many create_* tools.

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 tells the agent which parameter combination selects which view (workspace_tag alone vs chart_id vs snapshot_id) and what to do with the result ('Hand the url to the user to open'). It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case, but the mode-selection guidance is clear and actionable.

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