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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the link is displayed only once (critical for a non-idempotent, non-recoverable result), the recipient's capabilities (comment, rate, approve — no edit or publish), the email side effect requiring client_email, and the authorization constraint. None of this is in the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and return value come first, then scope, then side effects, then permissions. Parenthetical asides make sentences long, but every clause carries operative 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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return value (`url`), its one-time visibility, the recipient's abilities, the email branch, and the eligibility conditions. An agent has enough to invoke and report results correctly.

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 83%, so most params are documented, but the description still adds real meaning: `post_id` is contextual only and does not limit the link's contents, and `email: true` is coupled to `client_email`. That clarifies relationships the schema states only separately.

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 — make a review link for one client of a brand — and names the return value (`url`). It also narrowly scopes the resource ('every post of this brand waiting on them, not only post_id'), which separates it from the per-post review tools like review_post or comment_on_post_review.

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 the precondition for the tool to make sense ('posts wait on a client only when the brand's review settings require client approval') and the permission prerequisite ('Only people who can edit the brand's posts may'). It also explains the email-vs-manual-share branch. No explicit named alternative sibling (e.g. create_client_connect_link) is cited, which keeps it from a 5.

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