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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight here: it discloses that the artifact is publicly accessible to anyone with the link, that it is shareable externally, and that it persists only until the job expires. That visibility and lifetime context goes well beyond the annotation, though it omits whether the link is revocable.

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 with no filler; the nature of the artifact is front-loaded and the security/lifetime caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the artifact is, who can see it, and how long it lives. The one gap is that it never states that a URL/link value is returned, which the caller would want to know.

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% – the schema already documents job_id (with its origin in transcribe_url/create_upload) and robot_key (auth requirement) – and the description adds no parameter meaning on top of that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys a specific resource – a public web page of results for a completed job – which the create_share_link name frames as a created artifact, and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_job or request_summary. It stops short of stating a verb ('creates a link that returns a URL'), relying on the name to supply the action.

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 phrase 'results of a completed job' implies the prerequisite that the job must be finished, and 'for your user to open or send to others' hints at the use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_job for raw results.

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