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

Annotations already communicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context. It explains that entries feed send_link/send_sms and avoid exposing raw URLs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'repair' overwrites or what destructive consequences may occur, leaving some ambiguity beyond the annotation flags.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage context in the second sentence. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The schema is thorough and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to restate return values. The description supplies the integration context and the trigger scenario. A small gap is that it does not mention the destructive overwrite behavior implied by 'repair', but annotations partially cover this.

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?

The input schema already provides rich descriptions for all parameters, including label, key, is_active, destination_url, and dry_run. With near-total schema coverage, the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create or repair the business_links entries', then identifies the dependent tools (send_link/send_sms) and the use case. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its 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?

States exactly when to use the tool: when callers need booking, directions, cancellation, sister-location, or service-specific links texted without exposing raw URLs. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it, but the positive usage conditions are specific enough to guide selection.

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