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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false) and do not disclose access behavior. The description adds real behavioral context: the link is private, expires in about an hour, and requires the recipient to be signed in with their Saypage account. That is useful beyond the annotations, though it omits what happens on expiry or reuse.

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 key artifact (the private link) and its constraint (one hour). Minor awkwardness in the colon clause, but no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. The description covers the two things an agent most needs (privacy/access and the ~1 hour validity), making it adequate for a single-parameter 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 description coverage is 100% with a single trivial page_id parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for page_id; 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?

The description communicates that this tool produces a private preview link for a page draft, which distinguishes it from publish_page and get_page. The phrasing is slightly indirect ('A private link to the draft') — it never explicitly says the tool generates/returns the link — but an agent can infer the 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?

It gives one usage instruction ('Share it with the user'), but no when-to-use vs. when-not context and no explicit alternative among siblings such as publish_page or get_page. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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