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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the human-in-the-loop flow (the person writes and sends it, Hat Trick Local reviews before anything changes). That tells the agent no data mutates at call time, which the annotations alone only assert indirectly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the link is before the workflow detail and the prohibition. Slightly loose opening fragment ('A link to hand a person...') but every sentence carries information, with no padding.

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 two-parameter, read-only link generator with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, how the recipient experiences it, and the approval gate afterward. The only mild gap is that it never explicitly says the tool returns a URL string rather than performing the correction.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the enum. The description reinforces the meaning of `field` ('preselects what is wrong') but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description produces a concrete artifact ('a link to hand a person who found something wrong in a listing') and explains its effect (opens the listing with the correction form open). It is clearly distinct from create_claim_link/create_shop_link by resource, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'creates and returns' and never names the siblings.

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 gives a clear trigger (someone reports something wrong in a listing) and an explicit prohibition ('Never submit for the person'), which is a real when-not rule. It stops short of routing to alternatives such as create_claim_link for ownership issues versus this tool for data errors.

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