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

Annotations are all false and provide little signal, so the description carries the burden — and it delivers: it discloses that no account is created, no personal details are stored, the couple signs up themselves, and the link expires in 14 days. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It doesn't state what the tool returns (presumably the link itself), a minor gap that keeps it from 5.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second covers privacy/account behavior and the third is actionable guidance. It's efficient and every sentence earns its place, though it could be marginally tightened — hence 4 rather than 5.

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 12-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: the link's privacy posture, the 14-day expiry, that the couple self-signs-up, and what to tell the user. The only notable omission is an explicit statement of the return value format (the link itself), which is only implied. That minor gap keeps it at 4.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the required guestCount, the region slug reference, and the dateMode/eventDate/season interplay. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond pointing to 'the same answers used for build_wedding_plan', a cross-reference rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: turning a wedding plan into a private, shareable link that becomes a Wedyesday workspace. It lists the contained elements (checklist, budget, guest list, RSVPs, website) and distinguishes itself from build_wedding_plan by noting it reuses 'the same answers'. An agent can clearly tell this apart from its siblings.

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?

It gives clear context: this is the tool to hand the couple a link rather than produce a plan, and it cross-references build_wedding_plan as the source of the same inputs. It also tells the agent what to do with the result ('Give them the link and tell them it expires in 14 days'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or naming alternatives beyond build_wedding_plan, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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