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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description usefully adds that the link can be constrained by expiry and usage count, but says nothing about required authorization, whether repeated calls create duplicate links (relevant since idempotentHint=false), or what the caller receives back.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the two configurable constraints are stated immediately.

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 3-parameter creation tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly adequate, but since there is no output schema the description should mention that it returns a private link (URL/token) the caller can share, and it omits the event-type dependency.

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 67%: eventTypeId and expiresAt are documented in the schema, while maxUsageCount has no description. The phrase 'limited to a number of uses' adds plain-language meaning for maxUsageCount and clarifies the intent of expiry, matching the baseline for partial coverage but not compensating for the undocumented required-parameter relationship.

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 ('Create a private booking link') and adds the qualifiers that distinguish it (expiry, usage limit). It is clearly separable from list_private_links, update_private_link and delete_private_link by name, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to create a private link versus using update_private_link or a plain event type, no prerequisites (e.g. the event type must already exist), and no mention of permissions. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name.

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