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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds non-obvious behaviors beyond them: the link is only emailed and never shown, it invalidates any earlier link, and the permission scoping governs whose account can be targeted. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then permissions, then side effects, then the trigger. No filler; each sentence contributes distinct 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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, permission model, side effects, and trigger. No output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 the single email parameter and its "required for staff, omit for self" rule are already documented. The description reinforces the permission semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Email) and resource (password reset link) with scope (the address on an oriiion account). The audience/permission model sharpens exactly what the action does and whom it affects, distinguishing it from siblings like send_business_email or send_customer_welcome.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: "Use when someone cannot sign in or asks to change their password." It also states who is allowed to act on whose behalf (STAFF can name any customer; everyone else only their own), giving both a trigger condition and an authorization constraint.

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