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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true): it discloses that the server performs no user confirmation, that the snapshot is rebuilt and nothing is created on any mismatch (campaign, selection/order, note, includeRationale, prospect change, rename), the 30-day public visibility window, and that it does not share the conversation or invite anyone. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 prerequisites, then failure modes, then visibility. Sentences are dense and some are long, but virtually every clause carries distinct information, so the size is justified for the amount of behavior disclosed.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields, yet it still names URL, list id and expiry and notes that sending the link onward is a separate user action. Combined with the failure-mode list and revocation pointer, an agent has everything needed to call this mutating, open-world tool correctly.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that previewKey comes from preview_shortlist, that confirmPublic records the caller's confirmation rather than prompting the user, and that note/leadIds order/campaignId participate in the snapshot-match check. includeRationale's meaning is left to the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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 ('Publishes') and resource ('a preview_shortlist snapshot as a link') and names the sibling previews (preview_shortlist, revoke_shortlist) it relates to. An agent can distinguish it from the read-only preview and the revoke tools without opening any schema.

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?

Makes the prerequisite explicit (requires the previewKey that preview_shortlist returned plus confirmPublic: true) and points to revoke_shortlist for undoing the link. It doesn't give an explicit 'when not to use this' statement, but the gating condition is clear enough to route correctly.

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