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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a side effect ('The sender sees that it was opened'), which explains why readOnlyHint is false, and describes the conditional flow where a room with an agreement returns the agreement first. It also notes the write consequence of agree: true.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and waste little. The parenthetical URL examples mildly duplicate the schema's link description, which is the only redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return behavior for agreement-gated rooms, the side effect visible to the sender, and the meaning of both parameters. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description still adds meaning by tying agree to the agreement-return sequence ('agree: true records that the user accepted it'). It doesn't restate the link format details beyond the schema, keeping the gain modest.

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 ('Opens') and resource ('document or data room shared with the user') along with the link domain, which distinguishes it from siblings like read_shared or get_artifact. An agent can tell exactly what object this operates on without reading the schema.

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?

Clear context: use when the user has an artifactsend.com/d/... or /r/... link. It doesn't explicitly exclude or name sibling alternatives (read_shared, get_artifact), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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