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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Operator-bound' implies an authorization constraint, but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, return behavior, or what exactly linking an output entails.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical is compact but slightly ambiguous, and no further structure is provided for a four-parameter tool.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not supply enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand the meaning of its inputs.

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 are four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It generically mentions 'output' and 'exposed lot' but gives no meaning for kind, recipient, lot_id, or output_id, nor does it note that required parameters are zero.

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 ('Link') and resources ('output', 'exposed lot'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools such as record_exposure or exposure_query, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 parenthetical '(operator-bound)' hints at an operator-only context but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no indication of when this tool should be selected over siblings like record_exposure.

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