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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds specificity: 'Nothing is ordered or stored' and that payment happens on the store's site. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the tool's boundary and where side effects occur.

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 sentences: the first defines the action and result, the second clarifies side effects. No redundant information, front-loaded purpose, and every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and side effects. Parameters are documented in schema (lang) and items is implied. An output schema exists, so return format is covered. Missing are explicit error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple link generator this is adequate.

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 only 50% (lang has description, items does not). The description mentions 'these products' but adds no semantics for the items array (e.g., slug meaning, quantity limits). Since the schema lacks descriptions for slug and quantity, the description should compensate but doesn't, adding minimal value over the schema.

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 ('Make') and resource ('link') with clear outcome (opens checkout with products). Clarifies that nothing is ordered or stored, distinguishing it from purchase tools. Sibling tools are all informational, so this stands apart.

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 implies usage (give link to shopper for checkout) but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, leaving an agent to infer context rather than providing direct guidance.

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