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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds what they can't: the output is publicly visible on fplcopilot.com, only server-created cards are eligible, and a link is returned. It does not address whether repeat calls mint fresh links, which matters given non-idempotency.

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 compact sentences with the operative constraint ('App-only') front-loaded, followed by trigger, effect, return value, and scope limit. No sentence is 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies trigger, effect, and return value, and implies the token must be server-issued. It is silent on failure behavior for an invalid/foreign token and on link reuse across repeated calls, which is a minor but real gap given the non-idempotent annotation.

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%: the token parameter already carries a description and a 40-hex pattern. The description's 'the card's share token'/'as this server made it' restates and slightly reinforces the schema constraint without adding format or syntax detail, 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?

States a specific verb (publishes) on a specific resource (the card, as made by this server) with a concrete outcome (a public fplcopilot.com page returning a link). The closing scope limit 'Nothing else can be published' cleanly separates it from every read-only sibling in the list.

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?

'App-only' plus 'the FPL Copilot card's Share button calls this' tells the agent exactly when this tool is legitimately invoked, effectively excluding agent-initiated use. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but no sibling overlaps this capability, so the missing alternatives are moot.

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