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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description usefully explains why: the link is created on the first call and reused afterwards. It also discloses what comes back beyond the link itself (open count and approval status), which is real added context. Lacking are details on permissions or whether the link can expire or be revoked.

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?

Effectively one sentence, front-loaded with the return value, then the side effect and the supplementary data. It is slightly dense and run-on with nested clauses, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned artifacts (link, open count, approval flag) and the create-on-first-use side effect. Remaining gaps are secondary for a two-parameter tool: access requirements and link lifecycle are not covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both project_id and language documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 ('Returns the share link of a project') and explains what that link is: a client-facing page for viewing the model and images, commenting, and approving without an account. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vedutum_get_project or vedutum_view_model, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'the page where a client sees the model' signals this is the tool for client sharing, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or any exclusion against other retrieval tools. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing rules.

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