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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the link is temporary, works on web and app, and grants the recipient the ability to see AND copy the workout — an important exposure consequence. It omits the default TTL when ttl_minutes is omitted and whether links are revocable.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the effect of the call and then the input rule. No filler.

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 agent is left guessing what the response contains (the URL, its expiry, a token). The description establishes the concept of a link but not its return shape, default validity, or whether sharing requires the workout to be published.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by clarifying that exactly one of workout_id or workout_day_id is expected (an 'or' relationship the schema leaves ambiguous, since required is empty and both are optional). It still doesn't say what happens if both are supplied or what TTL defaults to.

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: creates a temporary link for sharing a workout or one program day. Scope (workout vs. single program day, web and app) is clear. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_invite_link or check_public_link, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The only guidance is 'Send workout_id or workout_day_id', which is parameter-level, not when-to-use. There is no statement of prerequisites (must the workout exist/published?) or when to prefer this over get_invite_link or check_public_link.

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