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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: sessionId omission creates a fresh environment, reusing it preserves state, and the agent must take the link from the answer rather than constructing it.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the link is for, how sessionId changes behavior, and a caution not to build the link manually. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers purpose, parameter semantics, and expected output behavior ('Take the link from the answer'). No output schema exists, but the description compensates by telling the agent exactly what to extract.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral difference between omitting and reusing sessionId, which is not captured in the parameter's 'Default: current timestamp' text.

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?

The description states a specific deliverable ('a link that opens the Playgama QA Tool'), a clear target ('a game you serve yourself, e.g. on localhost'), and a clear use case ('before uploading'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_archive_qa_tool_link, which would target archived games.

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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: for locally served games being tested in the Bridge SDK harness before upload. It does not explicitly name the alternative for already-uploaded or archived games, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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