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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool does not collect payment, create an account, or complete the assessment inside the calling assistant. This complements the idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the critical consent requirement, and every sentence provides essential usage or scope information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool that creates a link, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, external effects, and exclusions. The output schema exists to handle return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how 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?

The schema already covers the key parameters with descriptions (client_name, idempotency_key, consent_confirmed). The description adds that the link is 'attributed' and 'expiring', which gives some context for campaign/referral_source, but it does not fully clarify the remaining under-documented parameters or enumerate them explicitly.

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 'creates an attributed, expiring link to the official assessment', which is a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it does not complete the assessment or collect payment, so its role is distinct.

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 guidance is given: use only after the user explicitly agrees, and never speculatively or without consent. It also provides context for when a user might need this (asking how AI can help their business), but it does not name alternative sibling tools like describe_assessment.

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