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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that the capability is scoped to one organization/contact, expires, embeds no email address, and enables login-free unsubscribe via marketing_headers. It does not disclose the return format or expiration duration, but the core behavior is clear.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by key constraints and a practical integration hint. Every sentence 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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose, scoping, expiration, and usage with marketing_headers. The only notable gap is that it never explicitly states what the tool returns or how the generated URLs are surfaced, which an agent would need to consume the result confidently.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining why these parameters matter: the token is scoped to one organization and one contact, and no email address is embedded. This clarifies the relationship between organization_id, contact_id, and the resulting token.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create signed preference and unsubscribe URLs.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like commsharbor_preference_get and commsharbor_preference_unsubscribe, which retrieve or act on preferences rather than generating tokens.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the token's scope and how to integrate it: 'Put marketing_headers in the message and the unsubscribe works without a login.' It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use this tool or mentioning alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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