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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description is fully consistent with them while adding real value: it clarifies that no comment is posted and no account is altered, and it imposes a privacy constraint ('Never include credentials or personal details'). This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about the link's lifetime or whether repeated calls produce the same link.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger and action, scope boundary, data-hygiene rule. The action is front-loaded after a brief trigger clause, and no sentence is padding.

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 four-parameter read-only link builder with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient. The single real hole is the required modId, which an agent must infer as the mod whose installation is being reported.

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 0%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning; it names three of the four fields (outcome→result, model, firmware) and constrains them to user-verified values. However, 'modId' is required and completely unexplained in both schema and description, and the result enum values (works/partly/broken) are never mapped to the word 'outcome'.

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 a specific verb and artifact: prepare a co.build form link for the user to review and submit, triggered by a reported setup outcome. The negative sentence ('Does not post a comment, publish a result or change an account') implicitly separates it from publish_installation_report and publish_feedback. It never names those siblings outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 trigger is explicit ('After the user reports a setup outcome'), and there is a concrete data rule: use only outcome, model and firmware that were supplied or verified, omitting unknowns. What is missing is routing guidance among the adjacent prepare_*/publish_* tools, which share nearly the same surface.

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