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

Annotations already indicate it is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying that no email is sent and the catalogue is not published, which clarifies side effects beyond the basic mutation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps agents understand the operational behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, no unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the exclusions are clearly stated. It earns a perfect score for efficiency and structure.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter semantics, expected input values, or what the tool returns after creating the link. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional knowledge, making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention note, email, recipient, or catalogue_id at all. The description says 'named Business link' but does not clarify which parameter corresponds to the name. Agents have no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to fill them correctly, making this a severe gap.

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 clearly states the tool creates a named Business link (tracking link) and explicitly clarifies it does not send email or publish the catalogue. This differentiates it from siblings like update_tracking_link and publish_catalogue. The verb 'creates' plus the resource makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 exclusions ('No email is sent; does not publish the catalogue'), which tells agents when NOT to use this tool. It gives context about the scope, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specific conditions for when to use this one instead. The guidance is present but not fully explicit, so a 4 is appropriate.

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