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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description supplies the crucial context the annotations omit: the link is one-time, expires in 15 minutes, and opening it disables the chat preview and links for that file. That side effect sits in tension with destructiveHint=false, but it describes invalidation of an access artifact rather than data destruction, so it reads as added disclosure rather than a contradiction.

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 sentences, no filler, with the return value and its expiry front-loaded and the irreversible side effect placed second where it lands hardest.

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-param tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the return value, its lifetime, and the consequence of use — the essentials an agent needs. It does not address what happens on a second call or whether the ref remains usable elsewhere, minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single 'ref' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the explicit contrast that 'An upload_ticket is not a ref.' The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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 outcome — 'Return a one-time link ... that opens this file in the CADProps web workspace' — and scopes the resource to a single file. It is clearly distinct from inspect_cad/convert_cad/refresh_view_token in effect, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for measuring, sectioning and sharing' hints at the intent, and the warning about previews/links stopping implies a point-of-no-return condition. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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