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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those fields: it is free, changes no pages, and does not open the editor automatically, which prevents false assumptions about side effects.

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?

The definition is three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value. Each sentence contributes useful information, including the non-obvious manual-open constraint.

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 zero-parameter, read-only link getter with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the returned appUrl and explains that the owner must open it manually. No additional schema or annotation explanation is required.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return a link to open the Soclo page editor in the installed app.' It clearly distinguishes this helper from sibling editor tools that edit, prepare, read, or export content.

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?

It states the intended usage: offer the returned appUrl to the owner so they can open the editor. It also clarifies that the tool does not open the editor automatically, giving clear context, though it does not explicitly name when to prefer this over sibling editor tools.

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