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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable specifics beyond annotations: the replacement link is 72-hour, and the previous public link is revoked only when the connected service supports renewal. This gives agents useful side-effect awareness while some edge cases remain unstated.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the primary action and its boundary, and the second states the key side effect. Every word 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?

For a two-parameter tool with a full output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, key side effect, and the external dependency on service support. It does not elaborate on the fallback behavior when renewal is unsupported, but the core call guidance is sufficient.

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 the schema fully documents id and idempotencyKey. The description reinforces that the invoice is existing, but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; the 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 states a specific verb and resource: issuing a replacement 72-hour hosted review link for an existing invoice. It explicitly distinguishes the action from creating or revising the invoice, which separates it clearly from siblings like create_invoice and update_invoice.

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 gives clear context: use this for an existing invoice when a new hosted review link is needed, and clarifies it does not create or revise the invoice. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use list, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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