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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds non-obvious behavior: the optional programme_type and market inputs do not affect the operation itself, only the link's tracking tags. That is real context beyond the structured fields, though the teased 'what happens next' is never explained.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no padding. The trailing clause 'and what happens next' dangles without delivering the promised information, costing it a point.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the core is covered. However, nothing is said about what the returned link is, how long it is valid, or what the referenced 'next' steps actually are for an onboarding flow.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that both parameters are optional ('when given') and that they only influence link attribution rather than the operation, which is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Get the sign-up link for a business to open its own Fleek partner workspace.' It also resolves the tension in the tool's own name, making clear this does NOT start a workspace but returns a link for the business to do so, which meaningfully separates it from the sibling onboarding tools.

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 scenario ('a business wants its own partner workspace') is implied but never stated as an explicit when-to-use, and no alternatives are named despite merchant_onboarding and creator_onboarding being adjacent. Usage is inferable but left to the agent.

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