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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: the link is short-lived, includes a no-charge limited preview, and prohibits personal text. These details go beyond the annotations to clarify behavioral traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage condition. While every sentence is informative, the list of what the tool does not do is slightly lengthy but still valuable for clarity.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and exclusions, making it complete for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds additional meaning: 'the input accepts only product and language' and explicitly forbids personal text. It also explains the language parameter's effect ('confirmation boundary; full scans remain in English'), which enriches the schema.

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's purpose: creating a short-lived confirmation link for a Hemelion scan. It specifies the prerequisite conditions (after user chooses Clarity, MindScan, or both) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hemelion_assess_decision_readiness.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only after the person has chosen Clarity, MindScan, or asked Hemelion to show both') and what the tool does not do ('does not execute a full scan, expose checkout, unlock a report, or transfer later scan data'). This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage and exclusions.

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