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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the link is short-lived and requires human approval, so the agent understands this is an asynchronous, human-in-the-loop request rather than an immediate grant. It stops short of saying what happens after approval or whether auth/ownership is required.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most important information (what is created) is front-loaded before the scope qualifier.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, populated annotations, and an output schema to carry return values, the description supplies enough. The missing piece is the post-approval workflow (what the agent or user does next), which would make it fully complete.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented as 'Exact provider/endpoint slug returned by search', so the schema carries the burden. The description reinforces the single-endpoint scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 artifact ('Create a short-lived human approval link') and narrows the scope to 'one disabled catalog endpoint', so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces and how many resources it targets. It does not name a distinguishing sibling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'for one disabled catalog endpoint' implies the precondition (the endpoint must be disabled and looked up first), but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement that this does not itself grant access, and no mention of alternatives such as execute or cancel_cost_approval.

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