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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the credential's scope (topology and hop status, never hop content), its read-only nature, and the required access level. It omits whether re-minting invalidates prior tokens, revocation behavior, or that the token itself is the returned artifact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action and artifact come first, then the scope limitation, then the access requirement. No filler, and the em-dash clause carries real information rather than restating the tool name.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, authorization, and token scope, which is most of what an agent needs. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the minted token is the return value and what happens on repeat calls.

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 runId and the ttlSeconds range/default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or behavioral detail about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Mint') and resource ('read-only share/embed token for one run'), and pins down the exact token semantics by equating it to POST /runs/:id/share. No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is unmistakably distinct from get_run, search_runs, or start_run.

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 the operative condition for use ('for one run') and a prerequisite ('Requires owner or editor access'), plus an API-equivalence reference that tells the agent exactly what calling this produces. It stops short of naming when not to use it or how it relates to a revoke/unshare path, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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