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

With destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declared, the bar is lower, and the description does add real context: the bearer-link exposure model, revocation/expiry boundary, and the required manage access plus sharing entitlement. It does not say what the call returns (presumably a link URL) or whether repeated calls accumulate links, which matters for a non-idempotent destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is created, the approval gate, the access/entitlement prerequisite, and the retry rule. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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 non-idempotent, destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, exposure risk, expiry, and safe retry behavior. The notable gap is the return value and whether multiple links can coexist for one contract, which an agent needs before retrying or creating a second link.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions expiry presets (1, 7 or 28 days), which merely restates the enum, and says nothing about the five access-flag parameters (one-time use, comments, page view, document/attachment download) beyond the generic phrase 'the selected access'.

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: 'Create a bearer link' for a contract, with the nature of the artifact spelled out ('anyone with it can use the selected access'). This clearly separates it from clm_list_contract_shares and clm_revoke_contract_share, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a hard precondition ('after explicit user approval') plus entitlement requirements, and it routes the agent to listing links when the outcome of a prior call is unknown ('Unknown outcomes require listing links before retrying'). No explicit when-not-to-use case is stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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