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

Annotations establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the resulting link is public and re-executes the query live for every viewer rather than snapshotting results. That is important exposure/liveness context an agent would not get from structured fields. It still omits permission requirements for creating a public link and whether/how the link can be revoked.

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 leads with the critical 'App only' constraint and then the behavior. The parenthetical example ('today's matches') borders on unnecessary specificity but does illustrate the live-refresh semantics efficiently.

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?

With two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description should say what is returned (a URL? an id?) and how it is used, plus any access-control implications of publishing a public link. It discloses the liveness/public nature of the link but leaves the mechanics of the call and its response unaddressed.

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 0% and the description never mentions session_id or query_id, so neither parameter's meaning is supplied by any source. 'The screen on display' loosely hints that query_id identifies the query being shared, but session_id is entirely unexplained and both are required.

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 concrete output — a public link to the currently displayed screen — which is specific enough to separate it from qanvo_app_share_email, whose name implies email delivery. The verb ('create/generate') is only implicit, so an agent must infer that calling this produces a new link rather than returning an existing one.

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?

'App only' scopes the tool to the app surface, and the word 'link' implicitly distinguishes it from the share_email sibling. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'not for…' guidance, so the routing decision is left to inference from names.

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