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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: no onchain transaction, protocol DB membership only, and an authorization prerequisite on the caller's wallet. The 3-minute TTL is only in the title, not the description body, and there is no note on rate limits or whether a new code supersedes an older one — small but real gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is produced, the auth gate, the consumer workflow, and the side-effect scope. Front-loaded with the action and the artifact, with the alternate path correctly placed last.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a mutation tool with an authorization gate and a multi-step downstream flow, the description covers precondition, effect scope, and orchestration — everything an agent needs before calling it.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains idempotencyKey's retry semantics and length bounds. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves the baseline score.

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+resource with concrete attributes: 'Generate an 8-character multi-use link code for bulk agent/wallet linking.' It is instantly distinguishable from sibling link tools (problee_submit_link_consent, problee_approve_link_consents, problee_unlink_identity_wallets) because it names the code-generation step of that flow.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('bound operating wallet must be the verified root address'), a downstream workflow (share → each agent submits consent via problee_submit_link_consent → bulk-approve via problee_approve_link_consents), and a named alternative channel (the kellian.app identity linking page). An agent knows both when to call this and what to do next.

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