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

Annotations declare openWorldHint and readOnlyHint=false; the description justifies the non-read-only hint by explaining that links are minted, single-use, and expire in 15 minutes, and describes the out-of-band approval step on the provider's page. That is real behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations, though it does not say what a link looks like or whether calling repeatedly invalidates prior links.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the provider default, then the user flow and expiry. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (single-use links), how they are consumed, and their lifetime. It stops short of saying what the agent should do with the returned URLs or whether link generation is rate-limited or invalidates earlier links.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the default behavior when provider is omitted (get links for all providers), which is not stated in the enum description. The teamId admin/owner restriction lives in the schema, so no compensation is required.

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: 'Get single-use links that connect ... to the user's Caly account', and enumerates the supported providers. An agent can tell this is a link-generation tool rather than a credential-based connect tool, though no sibling (e.g. connect_calendar_with_credentials, connect_conferencing) is named to sharpen the distinction.

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?

'Leave provider out to get all of them' gives clear guidance for one parameter, and the flow description implies the human-in-the-loop context. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance against the several similarly named connect/disconnect siblings.

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