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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that ownership is not transferred, that the returned link is sensitive and should be scoped to one scorer, and that requestId should be reused on retries (reinforcing idempotentHint=true). It does not say whether earlier links are invalidated, whether the link expires, or that readOnlyHint=false means state changes on the server.

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 what is returned, followed by the sharing constraint and the two key behavioral caveats. No sentence is filler.

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?

Output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety profile, so the description only needs to fill in semantics and cautions. It does that for secrecy and idempotency but leaves the identity of 'id' and the lifecycle of the link (expiry, single-use, invalidation of previous links) unstated.

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. It explains retry semantics for requestId but never defines what 'id' identifies (scoreboard vs. session) and adds no constraint guidance beyond the schema's pattern fields.

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: it returns the connected account owner's private management link, which is clearly distinct from get/list/update/create scoreboard siblings. It does not explicitly tie the link to the required 'id' parameter, so an agent must infer that the link is scoped to a specific scoreboard.

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?

"Share it only with the intended scorer, never spectators" constrains downstream use of the result but says nothing about when to call this tool versus get_scoreboard or update_scoreboard. Usage is implied by the hand-off framing rather than stated as a selection rule.

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