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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot by enumerating the returned fields (name, type, target folder, expiration, jamsCreated), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what happens when the publicId is unknown or expired.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the identity-and-scope statement front-loaded ahead of the return-value preview and the sibling pointer. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 simple single-resource read with full schema coverage and a strong annotation set, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the natural follow-up tool. The only material omission is error behavior for a missing or expired publicId, which is light for a lookup tool.

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%, including the intent and llm_model fields, so the heavy lifting is already done. The description only reinforces that publicId identifies which link to fetch, adding no format or lookup-source detail beyond the schema. 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 ("Get a single recording link by its publicId") and the singular scope distinguishes it from siblings listRecordingLinks and listRecordingLinkJams. The second sentence previews exactly what comes back, so an agent knows what it is fetching without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to listRecordingLinkJams for the follow-up paging case, which is explicit alternative guidance. It does not explicitly state the precondition that the publicId must come from listRecordingLinks, though "by its publicId" implies it strongly.

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