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

Annotations carry no hints (only a title), yet the description discloses the critical behavioral traits itself: the link is PUBLIC and unauthenticated, the operation may reuse an existing link rather than mint a new one, and audio/conversation content is withheld unless includeConversation=true. It also instructs surfacing the `warning` field. It stops short of stating expiration or revocation behavior (revoke_share_links exists as a sibling), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the public/unauthenticated consequence and the explicit-call gate. Every sentence carries actionable content; only the parenthetical "(or reuses)" sacrifices a little clarity for brevity.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the sharing gate, and the one opt-in flag, and it even references the `warning` return field an agent should relay. It leaves the actual return payload (URL, expiry) unstated, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the input schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates that conversation is excluded unless includeConversation=true, giving the flag its privacy consequence, but adds no format or provenance detail beyond the schema for mortgageId.

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 (create/reuse a public dashboard link for a mortgage) and immediately qualifies the scope: anyone with the link can open it without signing in. This is materially different from siblings like get_dashboard or generate_comparison_dashboard, and an agent can distinguish them without opening any schema.

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?

"Only call when the user explicitly asks to share" is an unambiguous gating rule that prevents an agent from proactively creating public exposure. It also states the default exclusion of the conversation, which is the main branching decision an agent faces when invoking this tool.

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