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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the link is public and frozen (immutable snapshot), carries agency branding, and requires a preview-then-confirm sequence. It stops short of stating permissions or rate limits, so not a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+deliverable, followed by the critical confirm workflow. Dense but every clause carries information; a minor trim of the parenthetical contents list would make it tighter.

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?

For a 6-param write with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the preview/confirm contract well. Its only gap is not describing what a preview returns versus the final link, which an agent might want to know.

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 every parameter including the date range, brand, engine, lang enum, and confirm toggle is already documented. The description reinforces the confirm semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline-3 case.

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 (Create) plus resource (share report) and enumerates the report contents (visibility, competitors, top prompts, recommendations). The 'like the dashboard Share button' analogy and 'public, frozen link' scope make the deliverable unambiguous, and no sibling tool overlaps.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Preview first; confirm: true creates the link,' which tells the agent the two-phase invocation pattern and the guardrail before committing. It does not name a competing sibling to avoid, but none exists here, so context is clear without exclusions.

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