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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the link is single-use, valid for 7 days, and reveals the real carrier name (the only place revealed). Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, so the description complements well. No contradictions.

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?

The description is four sentences, each providing distinct information: first sentence states the core function, second sentence gives usage guidance with sibling tool, third sentence elaborates on use cases, fourth notes a unique property. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important info.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two required parameters, no enums, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, behavior (single-use, expiry), and a notable property. Annotations and schema are well-supported. No gaps in understanding how or when to invoke the tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description only mentions option_id with an example ('opt_home_a') which is already in the schema parameter description. It does not add meaningful new details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a single-use secure link for a bind-request page. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'bind link' are specific. It also distinguishes itself from sibling request_bind_inline by noting the alternative usage, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 description explicitly provides when to use this tool versus request_bind_inline: prefer inline for in-chat, use get_bind_link when customer wants to leave chat, finish on another device, or have numbers emailed. It also mentions pairing it with email offer. This is thorough guidance with clear exclusions and alternatives.

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