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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the genuinely important behavior: the resulting link is publicly accessible without authentication and is time-limited. It still omits that repeated calls create additional independent links (non-idempotent) and how revocation works, keeping it below a 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the most important fact — public, unauthenticated access — is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a statement of action, which slightly weakens front-loading of purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description never says what is returned (presumably the share URL) or whether all three artifacts are always included, so an agent cannot predict the response. For a simple two-parameter creation tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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 both parameters (runId format, days values 7/30/90 with default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'until it expires' only loosely ties to the days parameter and adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema.

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 names the concrete artifact produced — a link exposing a run's result, replay and video — which is more specific than the title alone. It does not state the creating verb outright (that comes from the name/title) and does not distinguish it from the sibling create_watch_link, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative create_watch_link or of list_share_links/delete_share_link for management. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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