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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: zero credit cost plus concrete authentication options (OAuth connect or an API key header, with the exact settings URL). It omits what happens if the board is missing or whether the link is shareable/public, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cost, then prerequisites — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The auth sentence is long and the embedded URL makes it wordy, but each element is actionable information rather than padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full schema, full description coverage, and an output schema that documents the return value, this is nearly complete: purpose, cost, and auth setup are all present. Minor gaps are error behavior for an invalid canvas_id and whether the link is stable or expires.

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 parameter already documents that canvas_id comes from list_canvases or create_canvas. The description adds nothing about the parameter or its format, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 — retrieves the link to a board's page — plus the intent (open in a browser or embedded panel), which is far more informative than the title 'Get board link'. What is missing is an explicit contrast with the sibling get_canvas, which returns board data rather than a URL; the agent must infer that distinction.

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 clear situational context ('so the person can open it in a browser or the host's embedded browser panel') and a decision-relevant cost signal ('costs no credits'), which helps when choosing between this and credit-consuming siblings. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls 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.