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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the link is public/unauthenticated ('anyone holding it can download'), it expires with a hard cap (720 hours = 30 days), and it is 'Confirm-gated', which explains the confirm flag and warns of a deliberate confirmation step. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether existing links are replaced/revoked, or idempotency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, exposure model, expiry bound, and confirmation gate with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 values need not be described. For a mutation-like tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the highest-risk facts (public exposure, expiry cap, confirm gate); only permission/revocation behavior and the two identifier params remain implicit.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain expires_in_hours (default 24, max 720) and ties confirm to the confirm-gate, but household_id and doc_id are left entirely to their names. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 a public link to a document') and adds scope that clarifies the operation: anyone holding it can download. That scope statement is genuinely informative. It does not, however, position itself against any sibling (e.g., upload_document/delete_document), though none of the siblings appear to be share-link alternatives.

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 only implied by the purpose: you call it when you want to hand a document to an external party. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (permissions on household_id, whether internal sharing is a different tool). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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