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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a startUrl and unlockUrl, and includes a note about copying the Claude prompt first. It also mentions the default behavior for students. While it doesn't explicitly state idempotency or side effects, the description gives sufficient behavioral context for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 informative but slightly verbose. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes relevant details. Every sentence adds value, though some phrases (e.g., 'copy Claude prompt first, then unlock') could be more concise. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids waste.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (startUrl and unlockUrl) and their formats. It also provides usage context. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple getter tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its purpose and output.

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?

The only parameter (companyId) has 100% schema description coverage, stating it is required for company-scoped tools. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage guidance for this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves the user's channel partner student share link and also returns an unlockUrl. It specifies the exact URL format (https://getfreedomos.com/start/{slug}) and distinguishes this tool from sibling channel partner tools by focusing on the student share link and unlockUrl for mid-funnel cases.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the operator asks for their partner link, UNLOCKED/student share URL, or 'how do people join through me'. It also gives a default behavior (default to startUrl, not unlock) and product language guidance (Partner, not affiliate). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like get_my_channel_partner_starter_pack.

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