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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the confirmation link is valid for 30 minutes, the operation returns a pending state until confirmed, and the next call depends on the returned confirmation. It does not cover edge cases like expiration or retries.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the action, its condition, and the follow-up procedure. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies all the agent needs to use the tool correctly: purpose, usage condition, link validity, pending state, and the required next step. No key detail 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is fully self-contained.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: getting a link for the user to read and confirm haggl ID consent. It distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it is used when the user is not in the conversation, and it names the follow-up tool haggl_create_haggl_id.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('when they are not in this conversation to agree to it'), what to do with the output ('Send them confirm_url'), and what to call next after confirmation ('call haggl_create_haggl_id with the returned confirmation'). This leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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