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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the link expires in 15 minutes and should not be persisted, which materially shapes how an agent should handle the result.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the actionable expiry constraint. 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?

Purpose and the critical expiry behavior are covered, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a 3-parameter tool with two enums and only 33% schema coverage, the description leaves format choices and the billing-relevant scope selection entirely to the schema, which is only partly documented.

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 only 33% — only 'scope' is documented, while 'format' and 'job_id' carry no description. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all (no mention of scope, format, or what job_id refers to), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get a link') and resource ('a finished scrape's results'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_scrape or list_scrapes. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the link-vs-data distinction is inferable.

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?

The second clause gives real operational guidance ('hand it to the user promptly rather than storing it'), which is a when-to-do-something-afterward instruction. It says nothing about when to choose this tool over get_scrape or list_scrapes, so usage selection against alternatives is only implied.

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