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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that no onchain transaction occurs and this is 'protocol DB membership only,' plus the root-address authorization requirement — meaningful context for an openWorldHint=true mutation. Gaps remain: it says nothing about what happens to previously issued codes, whether the code is single-shot per recipient, rate limits, or why a required idempotencyKey coexists with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is produced and the authorization prerequisite, then the workflow and the fallback. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, and the workflow, prerequisites, and non-onchain nature are covered. The 3-minute TTL appears only in the title, and nothing is said about behavior toward previously issued codes or whether the code is bound to specific recipients — minor but real gaps for a code-issuing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter idempotencyKey is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no guidance on the retry key despite idempotentHint=false, leaving a mild unexplained tension. Baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.

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 and resource with concrete attributes: 'Generate an 8-character multi-use link code for bulk agent/wallet linking.' This clearly separates it from kellian_submit_link_consent and kellian_approve_link_consents, which are named as downstream steps rather than alternatives.

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 the prerequisite (the authenticated agent's bound operating wallet must be the verified root address), the full consumption workflow (share code, each party calls kellian_submit_link_consent, then bulk-approve via kellian_approve_link_consents), and an explicit alternate path via the kellian.app identity linking page.

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