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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the URL carries only an opaque code (?p=…) and values are stored as workspace data, unknown variables are silently dropped, plan requirements, and the required scopes demos:read/demos:write.

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 layered detail (mechanism, limit, privacy, plan, return values, scopes) with no filler sentences. The standalone 'Requires:' line makes the permission requirement easy to scan.

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, and the description still states what comes back ('each link's hosted URL and embed URL'). With both parameters accounted for and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 50%, and the description compensates well for the 'values' parameter by listing the built-in keys (first_name, last_name, full_name, company, title, email) and noting custom ones come from content.variables, plus the 500-item cap and the drop-unknown-keys rule. The 'label' field is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Makes personalized links for a demo, one per prospect') and immediately explains the mechanism — per-link variable values substituted into the demo. It is unmistakably distinct from the read-side sibling list_personalized_links.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: bulk creation 'Up to 500 at once, e.g. from a CRM list', plus plan gating (Pro and Team only). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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