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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: it 'only formats a URL', does not verify the run exists, and the path is relative and routed internally by the chat. It doesn't discuss any failure modes of a malformed sessionId, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then the prerequisite caveat, which is a sound ordering. Four sentences plus a markdown example is slightly longer than this trivial formatting tool needs, but each sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately supplies the return format ('Present the result as a markdown link', with a concrete example) and the routing behavior. Combined with the prerequisite check and the when-to-offer guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and present this tool 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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The run's session id'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description implies the sessionId identifies a run but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Build a clickable link to a run's detail page') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling that fetches run data ('call automation_session_get first'), so an agent can tell it apart from automation_report or insights_build_link without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to offer it ('after explaining a run so they can see the video, screenshots and full command list') and names the prerequisite/alternative path (call automation_session_get first if the run hasn't been fetched). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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