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

Goes well beyond the annotations: rotating kills the old link, a revoked link is never re-issued to agents, an agent-initiated rotate blocks on owner approval, and the link is publicly readable by anyone holding it until expiry/decline/conversion. It also clarifies there is no PDF, only a print-ready page, which the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loads the return value, then the action semantics, then the sharing/permission constraints. It is dense but each sentence carries operational meaning; the numbers-in-cents aside and the PDF note could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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 specifies the returned fields (share_url and the full document in integer cents) and clarifies there is no binary file. Combined with the sharing and approval rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 enum already documents get/rotate/revoke, so baseline would be 3. The description adds genuinely new meaning — revocation persistence, approval gating, and that 'get' will not resurrect a disabled link — which shapes how an agent should choose the action.

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?

First sentence names a concrete return payload (share_url plus the full document with parties, lines and integer-cent totals) and frames it as a single call, which distinguishes it from quote_read or quote_item_list. The action semantics confirm this is the link-management tool rather than a document reader.

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?

Explicitly states 'get' is the default and what rotate/revoke do, plus the important guidance that nothing is sent and the link should be handed to the owner. It does not directly name sibling alternatives (quote_read, quote_convert, invoice_share) or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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