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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key requirement, the read-only nature of view_url, and the owner-only edit_url, plus the availability constraint. However, it does not mention the side effect of the 'new' parameter invalidating previous share links (though that is covered in the schema) or any error behaviors when called prematurely. The description adds some value but lacks deeper 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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the critical precondition and then lists outputs and constraints efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, which it does clearly. It covers prerequisites (key), availability, and the intended use case. It does not mention the 'new' parameter's effect, but that is fully described in the input schema. For a tool with three parameters and a clear precondition, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds context by clarifying that the key is required on created projects and not on beispiel-wohnzimmer, and that the project is the plan id from create_room. This enriches the schema descriptions and helps the agent correctly map parameters to the tool's domain.

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 states a specific action: it returns view_url and edit_url for a plan, and includes a precondition referencing check_plan. It clearly identifies the resource (plan) and the outcome (sharing/editing links). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling show_plan, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 call it ('only after the last check_plan returned no issues') and provides a clear exclusion ('not available on beispiel-wohnzimmer'). It also mentions the key requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives like show_plan, but the precondition and availability constraint give strong contextual guidance.

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