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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds the concrete consequence: "Anyone with the link can open it," i.e. public, unauthenticated access to the results. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation — whether the share is revocable, whether it expires, or what access the link grants beyond opening the copy — so a safety-relevant trait is left unexplained. No contradiction with annotations; creating a share is a write.

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 action and followed by the consequence. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 should say that a link/URL is returned and what it points to, but it does not. For a destructive, open-world sharing operation with 0% parameter documentation, the missing details on revocation, expiry, and contact inclusion leave an agent able to call it but not to call it safely or explain the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions either parameter. In particular include_contacts (default true) is privacy-relevant — it apparently decides whether contact data is baked into the shared copy — and the description says nothing about it, nor does it clarify that find_id identifies the run.

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 and resource ("creates a link to a fixed copy of a run's results") and the "fixed copy" phrasing conveys that the share is a snapshot rather than a live view. It does not, however, differentiate itself from similar siblings such as share_collection, get_shared_spec, or export_find, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent to prefer export_find for downloads or share_collection for collections, nor that revoke_share is the inverse operation, leaving selection between these siblings entirely to inference.

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