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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the link targets a 'free Veliane profile', giving useful intent context but no detail on defaults, rate limits, or what the returned URL looks like.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'in the right language' is slightly vague (right by whose standard?) but the sentence still 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?

For a simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials and effectively describes the return value. However, with zero required parameters it never says what happens when lang is omitted (default language behavior) or what the resulting link contains, which an agent may need to know.

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 50% (country is documented as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, lang carries a self-explanatory enum). The description adds that lang controls language and country is optional, which is real but minimal value beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (the join/create-profile link) and what it produces, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_veliane_facts, get_veliane_price, or search_veliane_help. The verb is implicit in the noun phrase ('The link to create...'), so it is clear but not as crisp as an explicit 'Returns...' phrasing.

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?

Usage is only implied: it hints that the link is language-specific and optionally country-specific, which tells an agent roughly how to call it. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when a caller would not want a join link at all.

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