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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description builds on that by detailing the delivery mechanism (one-paste Claude prompt, no skill file/AirDrop/terminal), the unlockUrl conditional, and the instruction to default to startUrl over unlock. It adds substantive operational context without contradicting the 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return contents, trigger phrases, default behavior, and product-language note. It front-loads the core purpose and return values before supporting usage guidance.

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 supplies the return field names and meanings (startUrl, slug, unlockUrl, blurb, prompt) plus the decision rule between startUrl and unlockUrl. For a no-required-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the sole optional companyId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 names a specific resource ('your classroom starter pack for students') and the concrete assets it returns, including the public share URL, slug, unlockUrl, blurb, and full student prompt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_channel_partner_stats and get_partner_cos_onboard by focusing on the shareable student handoff rather than analytics or onboarding.

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?

It explicitly enumerates operator triggers ('partner link', 'starter pack', 'classroom prompt', 'how do people join through me') and gives the default selection rule (startUrl, not unlock). It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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