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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the link is anonymous and account-free for viewers, that planned-but-uneaten meals are excluded from the share, that the link reflects live state rather than a snapshot, and that the URL is shown exactly once and is unrecoverable. This meaningfully explains the non-idempotent, open-world nature the annotations only flag generically.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then privacy scope, then live-state behavior, then the one-time-URL warning. No filler; each sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what is returned (a URL) and that it is delivered only in this reply. The privacy boundary and freshness semantics are covered, leaving nothing material an agent needs before calling this mutation.

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 all three parameters (tz, date, ttlHours) are already fully documented, and the defaults are spelled out in the schema. The description reinforces 'one day' and 'time-limited' but adds no format, boundary, or interplay details (e.g., how tz affects which day is shared) beyond the schema.

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 ('Create an anonymous, time-limited link to one day of the signed-in user's Joiva food log') with explicit scope. The day-level scope plus the note that planned meals stay private cleanly separates it from the meal-level sibling joiva_share_meal without needing to name it.

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 implied by the scope ('one day of the food log'), but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over joiva_share_meal, joiva_list_shares, or joiva_revoke_share. There are also no stated preconditions (e.g., must have entries that day) or exclusions.

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