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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the real-world consequence (anyone with the URL can view the plan unauthenticated), the permission and plan gating, and the return-value behavior on repeat calls. One tension worth noting: 'the same link comes back' reads as effectively idempotent, while idempotentHint=false claims otherwise — not a safety-critical contradiction (destructiveHint=false is consistent), but the agent may be mildly confused about repeat-call effects.

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?

Front-loads the CONSEQUENTIAL warning, then packs exposure, permissions, plan tier, confirmation, and repeat-call behavior into three short sentences. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it exposes, who may call it, the plan requirement, the user-confirmation gate, and what the call returns when already shared.

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 a single required projectId, so the schema already carries the parameter's meaning. The description only implies the project scope ('a project's plan') and adds no format or lookup guidance, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('turn on a public read-only link to a project's plan') and makes the scope explicit — public, read-only, anyone with the URL. This clearly distinguishes it from the get_share_link and revoke_share_link siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and exclusions: Administrator or ProjectManager role, Pro plan only, and an explicit 'Confirm with the user before calling' instruction. It does not explicitly route to siblings (e.g. 'use get_share_link to check whether one already exists'), which keeps it short of a 5.

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