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

Annotations only supply the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only); the description adds the substantive behavior: the required scope, the absence of a human-approval gate, the irreversibility of already-copied content, and the retry/receipt role of request_id. This is exactly the additive context layered on top of annotations that warrants a top score.

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 sentenceless clauses, each carrying a distinct piece of information (effect, prerequisite, irreversibility, retry key), front-loaded with the core action. No filler and nothing restated from the schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the authorization requirement, the limits of the action, and the idempotency key. The only gap is that share_id's expected provenance (e.g., from create_portfolio_report_share or list_portfolio_report_shares) is not stated.

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% for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for request_id ('Preserve request_id for exact retry or receipt recovery'), explicitly linking it to the idempotent hint, but share_id is given no meaning beyond its name. Partial compensation for a documented gap.

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 ('Revoke future reads through an owned report link') and bounds the effect precisely ('no report content is changed'). An agent can distinguish this from supersede_portfolio_report, delete-style siblings, and unshare_saved_view without opening a 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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('Requires explicit reports:share') and a routing nuance ('reducing access does not need another human approval'), which tells the agent it can proceed without an approval step. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over sibling alternatives like unshare_saved_view, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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