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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it provides a link for specific features, but does not explain the return format (a URL), whether it opens a browser or app, or any side effects. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and followed by exclusions. There is no wasted wording and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple, single-parameter link provider with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers when to use and when not, though it could clarify that the returned value is a link URL.

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 feature parameter is thoroughly documented with examples and accepted values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description conveys that the tool provides a 2hives.com link for features the assistant does not handle itself, with examples (library, team, challenges, live events). It does not state the action explicitly (e.g., 'returns a URL'), but the intent is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_my_2hives_data.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use ('when the user wants something this assistant does not do itself') and when-not ('Not for medical questions, emergencies or a crisis'; 'Not for general chat about meditation'). It lacks explicit naming of alternative tools, but the conceptual boundary is well-defined.

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