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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: `share` is null when the sandbox is unpublished or blocked, which is a precondition an agent cannot get from the annotations. It also explains the downstream Facebook nuance (link only, developer pastes text), which clarifies why both fields exist.

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, front-loaded with the returned data, then the null edge case, then the platform-specific caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it partially does — `share.text`, `share.links`, and the null case. But the shape of `share.links` (one link or per-platform links, which platforms, URL format) is left undefined, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the payload.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Game id from list_applications'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description never mentions `applicationId` or any scoping behavior, adding nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 names the concrete resource and return payload: the ready post (`share.text`) and share links (`share.links`) for the game's live sandbox. That is specific enough to separate it from `get_sandbox_state` or `get_sandbox_traffic` at a glance, though it never states an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not call out the sibling distinction directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to call after publishing when it needs share copy, and the null condition ('not published or is blocked') signals when there will be nothing to return. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_sandbox_state' routing or stated prerequisite chain, so an agent must infer the workflow.

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