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

Without the description an agent would only see destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false with no explanation. The description supplies the reason: the token is single-use, expires after 24 hours, and consumption is a redemption rather than a read. It also discloses the plan requirement and the shape of the response, though it says nothing about what an expired or already-redeemed token returns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by lifecycle constraints, return payload, usage context, and prerequisite. Nothing is padded, though the title's "Redeem" and the description's "Consume" are slightly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned routing fields, plus the token lifecycle and plan gate. What remains unstated — error behavior on replay or expiry — is a minor gap for a single-parameter tool.

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% and the single token parameter is fully documented as a "32-character hex token from the Web2App redirect." The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond that, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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?

"Consume a Web2App routing session token" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description goes further by naming the returned routing decision (linkId, UTM params, country, routing rule). It does not name or distinguish against any sibling, but the sibling list contains no near-neighbor for this operation, so ambiguity is low.

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?

"Use this to complete a deep-link handoff in your mobile app" states the calling context clearly, and "Requires Pro or higher" flags a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or failure-path guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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