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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the 2-hour expiry, immediate revocation via revoke_file_link, the security consequence of leaking the URL ('while it works it opens the file'), and two concrete failure modes: not_found when file links are disabled and a permission error unless the member authorized the connection for file links.

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 what the link is and its lifetime, then layers security and failure conditions. Some phrasing is dense and slightly awkward ('as they uploaded it, for the member to open'), and the dangling `audience` clause adds words without valid referent, but overall it is efficient for the amount of behavior conveyed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers lifetime, security, audience behavior, and error conditions thoroughly. The remaining gap is that neither required parameter (job_id, application_id) is described, and a nonexistent `audience` parameter is discussed instead.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it never explains job_id or application_id. Worse, it references an `audience` parameter ('When `audience` is "member"...') that does not exist in the input schema, which can mislead the agent into looking for or inventing a parameter.

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 ('A 2-hour link to the candidate's CV file, as they uploaded it') with scope and duration, and implicitly distinguishes itself from revoke_file_link (which it names) and from create_video_link by naming the CV as the target artifact.

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?

Explains the intended consumer ('for the member to open') and names the revocation alternative ('revoke_file_link stops it at once'), plus explicit handling instructions ('Give the url to the member only, and never put it in an email or a note'). It stops short of stating when not to create a link at all versus other ways of sharing the CV.

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