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

Annotations flag a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds the traits that matter beyond them: the run costs money, repeats are not free, and a human must consent before the approved:true call. It also discloses that execution uses the published version and page defaults rather than a draft, which is real behavioral context.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then the cost/consent rule, then the polling instruction. Every clause carries operational weight, though the approval sentence is packed tightly enough to need a second read.

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 paid, destructive, non-idempotent action with no output schema, the description covers the consent gate, the paid-call sequence, and the follow-up loop against get_run. The only mild gap is that it doesn't state what run_share itself returns to poll with, but the get_run instruction effectively fills that.

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, but the description still adds meaning: 'approved' is gated on an explicit human yes after the cost is shown, and 'inputs' fall back to the page's defaults for anything omitted. It does not add syntax detail for the nested inputs object, which is left to get_share.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('run a workflow share page once as its owner, exactly as a visitor would') and pins the scope to the published version and default inputs. That framing distinguishes it from share_agent, update_share, or use_share without the reader opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions ('to check it works or get a result') and a mandatory two-step approval protocol before the paid call. It also routes to get_share for input names and get_run for polling. It stops short of naming which sibling run tool to pick instead, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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