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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: single-use semantics, a 15-minute expiry, no account/trial creation side effect, no auth requirement, a named failure mode (handoff_disabled) with a status endpoint to check it, and retry/idempotency behavior. This is exactly the disclosure an agent needs before invoking a link-minting tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first clause, then layered constraints, permissions, failure mode, and retry guidance in short declarative sentences. No filler; each sentence adds an operational fact the agent must act on.

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 5-param, no-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, error modes, auth, and retry semantics thoroughly. The one gap is the return shape — it never says what the response contains (e.g. the link itself) beyond hinting that a disabled operator 'answers handoff_disabled', which an agent would need since no output schema exists.

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 every parameter (locale, industry_key, idempotencyKey, demo_session_id, recommended_plan) is already documented in the schema, including fallback behavior and the enum source. The description mostly restates the carried fields and the idempotencyKey retry rule rather than adding syntax or format meaning, 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+resource ('Prepare a single-use sign-up link for a person') and immediately scopes what it carries (language, industry, recommended plan). It also carves out what it is NOT ('does not create an account or a trial'), which no sibling tool does, so an agent can separate it from create_chatbot or get_fit without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear operating context: works without authentication, the operator can disable it (then answers handoff_disabled), and /agents/start shows current status. It also implies when not to rely on it ('does not create an account or a trial'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-to-prefer-this condition, so it is not a full 5.

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