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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the security posture ('anyone holding the link can download'), the expiry ceiling (default 24, max 720 = 30 days), that a token and expiry are returned, and the confirm-gated first call. That is exactly the mutation/authorization context annotations don't carry. It only omits that each call mints a distinct link (non-idempotent), a small gap.

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 dense sentences: purpose and access model first, then expiry bounds, then the confirm requirement. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the access model, the expiry constraint, the return contents, and the confirm workflow. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first try.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it documents expires_in_hours' default and hard cap and explains the confirm flag's two-phase semantics. household_id and doc_id are left implicit, but their names are self-describing within the 'household's document' framing.

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 download link to a household's document') and immediately clarifies the access model. No sibling tool in the list creates share links, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit operational prerequisite: 'Needs confirm=true: the first call returns a plan,' which tells the agent it must run a two-phase flow. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling offers overlapping functionality, so the gap is minor.

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