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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the conditional return of a link when no editor is connected, and the fact that editing/frames/export depend on this connection.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core check and followed by the outcome and dependency. Almost no waste, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does partial work by explaining the conditional link return. An agent knows the operation is a read-only idempotent check and what it depends on, leaving little unstated beyond exact return shape.

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 'project' parameter is already documented as coming from list_projects or create_project. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 check (is an editor tab listening for this project) with a clear resource and a concrete outcome (returns a link if not). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with make_editor_link, which sounds closely related.

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?

'Editing, frames and export need it' gives implied usage context by naming the dependent features. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, particularly against the sibling make_editor_link, which likely serves a overlapping purpose.

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