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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: single-use semantics (consistent with idempotentHint=false), expiry at expires_at, client-side encryption where Laso never sees the card number, and zero prerequisite setup. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the annotation block.

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-loads the purpose, then bold callouts for the critical agent action and the polling loop, then prerequisites. Well ordered and mostly every sentence earns its place, though the aside comparing the page to identity verification is slightly more color than instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is delegated appropriately; the description still calls out url and expires_at to tie the polling instruction to a field. For a zero-parameter tool it covers the full agent workflow: how to deliver the link, what the holder does, how to detect completion, and what happens if the link lapses.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead surfaces the relevant return fields (url, expires_at), but there is no parameter semantics to add meaning to.

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 — minting a single-use link that lets a holder save their own card — and elaborates on exactly what the link is for. An agent can distinguish it from get_saved_cards (listing existing cards) and buy_with_saved_card (spending) without opening any 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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: send the url to the human rather than opening it, poll GET /get-saved-cards until the card appears, and re-mint if the link expires. It also states the route is free and needs no identity verification or prior setup. It stops short of explicitly contrasting this link flow against sibling link generators like get_auth_link or get_kyc_link, so it doesn't reach the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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