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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: `share` is null when unpublished/blocked, and the warning 'never build them' is a critical constraint that an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core content first, then add null behavior and a critical handling instruction. No filler or repetition. Slightly dense with backticks and terms, but every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (`share.text`, `share.links`, null case) and how to treat the links. It is complete enough for correct invocation and basic handling without needing a full response schema.

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%: the only parameter, applicationId, is already described as 'Application (game) id, as returned by list_applications'. The description adds no new parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the specific resource ('the ready post (`share.text`) and share links (`share.links`)') and the action ('get'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_sandbox_state or get_sandbox_traffic. The title 'Read the sandbox share post' reinforces the exact purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving share content, but it does not mention when to prefer it over get_sandbox_state or how to handle the null case in terms of next steps. The Facebook-specific context is useful but does not clarify tool selection.

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