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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses anonymous public access, 48-hour expiry, repeated calls returning the same link without extending it, and no additional optimization/charge. It also adds UI language behavior, which contextually explains what idempotentHint=true means in practice.

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?

Though multi-sentence, every sentence carries a distinct behavioral or usage constraint; nothing is filler. The opening sentence states the core purpose before the caveats, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers selection criteria, privacy exposure, expiry, re-call idempotency, cost, and language handling. An output schema exists for return values, so there is no significant missing context for an agent to call 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents syntax and origin of both parameters. The description adds value by saying language should be the conversation language and controls the page/share message/PDF language, and that optimization_id must refer to a completed optimization from optimize_routes, but the schema already covers much of this.

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 first sentence names a specific action and resource: 'Create a temporary public link to the map of a completed optimization owned by the connected account.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like optimize_routes or get_optimization_result, so an agent knows it is about sharing a finished map.

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 description gives an explicit decision rule: offer the account plan and the link, and 'create the link only when the user picks it.' It also states what the tool does not do ('Does not optimize again or charge stops'), preventing misuse as a rerun-optimization tool. This is as concrete as naming a sibling alternative.

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