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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ownerLink grants edit/publish control while reviewLink is read-only, review feedback triggers a user notification and appears in the dashboard Reviews tab, and it defaults to the latest generation batch.

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 structured as parallel ownerLink/reviewLink definitions. Slightly long and contains persuasive asides ('great when chat can't render images'), but nearly every clause carries usable information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain the two links and their capabilities plus the default batch. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no posts exist, link expiry, or output format, leaving minor gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented; baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the no-parameter default ('Defaults to the latest generation batch'), which is meaningful given zero required parameters.

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 action and resource: it creates two links (ownerLink, reviewLink) to a visual page of the user's generated posts, and spells out what each link exposes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from link-producing siblings such as create_upload_link, get_connect_link, or prepare_booking_link, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 concrete when-to-use context for each link type ('great when chat can't render images, or as a QR on a phone' for ownerLink; 'safe to share with a client or colleague' for reviewLink). It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when NOT to call it, but the guidance is actionable.

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