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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the page is public, anyone with the link can view it, and access lasts until the job expires. It also implies the job must be completed. With annotations already covering open-world and idempotent behavior, this additional exposure and lifetime context is valuable.

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 communicate the artifact, audience, public visibility, and expiration with no wasted text. The key outcome is front-loaded and the security implication follows immediately.

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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the main artifact and visibility behavior. It does not explicitly state that a link/URL is returned, but the concept of a public web page is sufficient for invocation context.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 clearly identifies the resource created: a public web page containing a completed job's results, intended for sharing. It does not explicitly say 'creates a share link' or distinguish this tool from siblings like get_job, but the outcome is specific enough to infer 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 'for your user to open or send to others' implies the sharing use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job or list_jobs. Usage is therefore only implied rather than stated with clear conditions or exclusions.

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