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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, open-world profile, yet the description adds real operational context: the audience link only works while public access is enabled, self-shared links do not expire unlike invite-email links, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. These are genuine preconditions and auth requirements beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are mostly earning their place, though the 'Riverside:' prefix is redundant with the title and the role/expiry details could be tightened slightly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a link per role), the operating conditions (audience access), and expiry behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor.

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% and the single studio_id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_studios. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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: it returns the studio links, broken out by role (guest, producer, audience). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like riverside_invite_guest, which sends an invite, and the description makes that contrast explicit via the invite-email reference.

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 context is implied rather than stated: it contrasts a self-shared link with an invite-email link and notes the audience link's precondition. But it never says explicitly when to choose this over riverside_invite_guest or what triggers a need for these links.

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