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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: anyone with the link can read it, copied content cannot be recalled, approval and permission requirements, UTC Z expiry bounds, public visibility acknowledgment, uncertain-reply handling, and the fact that no link is sent. This is rich disclosure for a security-sensitive mutation tool.

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 purpose and then layers risk, prerequisites, constraints, recovery, and delivery expectations. The density is justified for a high-risk share-creation tool, though some statements could be tightened.

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?

Covers safety, approval, expiry constraints, recovery, and the fact that no link is sent. However, with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, it leaves snapshot_id and expected_projection_hash underspecified and only implies what the create response contains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five required parameters. It explains expires_at format and range, acknowledge_public, and request_id retention, but does not explain snapshot_id or clearly identify expected_projection_hash as the previewed projection hash. Partial compensation for a zero-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: create an expiring read-only bearer link for the exact previewed report projection. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools such as preview_portfolio_report_share, get_portfolio_report_share, and revoke_portfolio_report_share.

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 prerequisites and context: requires explicit reports:share and independent human approval, expiry bounds, explicit public acknowledgment, and recovery guidance via get_portfolio_report_share_receipt. It stops short of explicitly naming preview_portfolio_report_share as a required predecessor or stating when not to use the tool.

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