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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: each recipient gets an individual link, access 'door' and reading report, while the underlying content stays shared and updates together. That explains the isolation and sync semantics of the operation. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or what the caller receives back, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The term 'door' is unexplained jargon that slightly muddies otherwise clean phrasing.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers enough: what is created, who it is for, and how content stays shared. It does not say what the return value contains (e.g., the new link URL) or how the per-person link relates to link_report and list_links, leaving a small gap.

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%, so all four parameters — including email and only_them — are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'name' idea and adds no format or interaction details beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — making another link to the same artifact for one person — and the 'another' wording implies a variant of an existing link. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like link_report or update_link, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 one per investor or client" gives a clear context for when to reach for this tool (individual, named recipients). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as when a single shared link or a group link would be preferred.

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