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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result is a signed deeplink plus a summary and that the customer finishes checkout themselves, implying this is a non-finalizing handoff. But it omits auth requirements, link expiry/signing behavior, and any rate limits, so it only partially covers the behavioral surface.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the handoff flow. The embedded example of the summary format earns its place as illustration, with no 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the return payload (deeplink + summary) and the customer-driven flow, which is what the missing output schema would otherwise need to convey. Only auth/link-lifetime details are absent.

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%, so the schema already documents designId and locale. The description adds a nuance (the summary is English, separate from the editor locale) but does not otherwise extend parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the signed handoff deeplink) and clarifies it also returns a short summary, which distinguishes it from the create/get/update design siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the handoff purpose is unambiguous.

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 customer fine-tunes and checks out themselves" implies the usage context (hand off an existing design so the customer completes the purchase). However, no explicit when-to-use vs siblings and no prerequisites (e.g. that a design must exist first) are stated, leaving the trigger to inference.

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