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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding auth requirements (owner/admin role), an entitlement gate (shareable-dashboards plan), and the concrete idempotency consequence ('re-enabling keeps the existing link'). It does not describe failure behavior when the plan gate is unmet or how a share is later revoked, keeping it below 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying aside and the two constraints appended in priority order. No filler and nothing repeated that structured fields already carry.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what changes, what is returned (the URL), the idempotent behavior, and the authorization/plan prerequisites. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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% and the schema itself even tells the caller to source workspaceId from list_workspaces, so the parameter is fully documented in structured data. The description only restates 'for a workspace' and adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond the schema — the 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 (enable), a precise resource (the public/tokenized dashboard share for a workspace), and names the artifact produced (its URL). The parenthetical gloss 'the link agencies send prospects' removes any ambiguity about what a 'dashboard share' is, which matters because no sibling tool touches sharing.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use — caller must be a workspace owner/admin and the plan must include shareable dashboards — so an agent knows when the call is even legal. It stops short of naming when not to use it or what alternative exists if the plan gate fails, so it is not a full 5.

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