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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the output format (markdown link), the relative path and internal routing behavior, and explicitly discloses the tool's limitation: 'This only formats a URL — it does not check that the run exists.' It also surfaces the prerequisite, making side effects and non-effects transparent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and includes useful example, usage context, and limitation. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes meaningful guidance rather than padding.

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 formatting tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies exact output form, when to use it, what it does not do, and the prerequisite call. An agent has enough information to invoke and present the result correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example ('session_id=abc123') and explains the parameter as a run's session id, but this largely mirrors the schema's 'The run's session id.' The added value is modest.

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 verb and resource: 'Build a clickable link to a run's detail page.' It also differentiates itself from similar automation tools by clarifying it only formats a URL and does not fetch run data, which distinguishes it from automation_session_get and automation_report.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Offer it after explaining a run so they can see the video, screenshots and full command list for themselves.' It also names the prerequisite alternative: 'call automation_session_get first if you have not already.' This is clear routing between tools.

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