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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates server state and reaches outside the local system, but nothing in the description explains what side effects occur, whether existing links are invalidated, whether the link expires, or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. Every clause 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?

The output schema covers the return value, so 'Returns JSON with link URL' is optional reinforcement rather than necessary. However, for a state-mutating, open-world tool with no usage guidance, the description omits prerequisites, link lifetime, and side effects that an agent would need.

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?

A single required parameter whose semantics ('the UUID of the agreement') are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by UUID' corroborates but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information.

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?

Specific verb (Generate) + resource (shareable review link) + scoping parameter (for an agreement by UUID). No sibling tool produces links, so it is implicitly distinct, but the description never differentiates itself explicitly from adjacent read/write agreement tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the agreement must be sent, signed, or in a particular state), and no mention of alternatives such as send-agreement or download-agreement-pdf. The agent must infer all context.

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