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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that params are passed through to pre-fill the target tool, which is useful behavioral context. It does not state what the returned link looks like, whether validation occurs, or what happens when params do not match the target tool.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the enum list and param examples are presented directly without unnecessary prose.

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 simple link-builder with no output schema, the description covers the main action and target tools. It leaves gaps around the return value, since it only implies a deep link is returned, and around how params map to each target tool. These gaps matter because params is a free-form nested object.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It repeats the tool enum already present in the schema and gives examples of pass-through params such as hin, modelId, make, model, year, category, and state. It does not explain which params are meaningful for which target tool or how the nested params object is validated.

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: "Build a deep link" that sends a human to a pre-filled Boat Day tool. It enumerates the supported target tools, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast this handoff-link builder with sibling data tools such as estimate_boat_value or get_boat_model, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase "sends a human straight to a pre-filled Boat Day tool" implies this is for human handoff rather than direct data retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no stated alternative for agents that need the underlying data themselves.

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