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

The description explicitly says 'Creates (or returns)' which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation and tells the agent the call may return an existing link rather than fail. It also reveals that the link is public and that clients can approve, request changes, and comment, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the primary action ('Creates or returns'), the output type (public link), and the client-facing capabilities without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (a link) and the workflow it enables. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response shape or prerequisites, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The only parameter, content_plan_id, is fully described in the schema as coming from list_content_plans, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add format or source details beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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+resource: 'Creates (or returns) a public link' for client review of a content plan. It goes beyond the name by explaining the client-facing workflow (approve, request changes, comment), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plan_feedback or preview_canva_plan.

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?

The description makes the intended use case clear: when you need a client-accessible link for reviewing and approving LinkedIn-formatted posts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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