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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: "Nothing is saved; the link encodes the order," which tells the agent the operation is stateless and the resulting URL is self-contained. It stops short of stating the returned shape or any length/format constraints.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious behavioral fact (no persistence). No redundant restatement of the title, and every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only link builder with no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (a short link), how content is ordered, and that nothing is persisted. Only the exact return value (a URL string) is left implicit rather than stated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `ids` ("Text ids in reading order") and `from_name`. The description reinforces ordering semantics ("opens several prayers in the given order") but adds no format, count, or sender-name guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Build a short pocketpothi.com link") and states the payload and scope: several prayers in the given order, opened in one scroll. This is clearly distinct from fetch/get_text/list_texts/search siblings, which retrieve content rather than compose a shareable link.

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?

It gives implied-use context ("to read in one scroll or send to family (e.g. on WhatsApp)"), which tells the agent the scenario that calls for this tool. But there are no explicit when-not conditions and no alternatives named, so the agent must infer that other tools handle plain text retrieval.

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