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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it filters to unused, unexpired links for the current handle, orders newest first, and explicitly notes that the link URL itself is never returned.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the most important selection criteria and return shape. Each sentence carries useful information, including the non-obvious warning that the link itself is never returned and the follow-up action for revocation.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by listing the exposed fields (id, eventType, email, createdAt, expiresAt) and the exclusions. Combined with rich annotations, it gives the agent everything needed to select and interpret this zero-parameter list tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to explain. The mention of passing an id to revoke_booking_link refers to using an output id with another tool rather than a parameter of this tool, which is helpful context but does not change the zero-parameter baseline.

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 exact resource (booking links) and scopes it tightly to links that can still book for the current handle, distinguishing it from the sibling list_bookings. It also enumerates the returned fields and ordering, so an agent knows precisely what the tool produces.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering criteria ('can still book') and by the pointer to revoke_booking_link for revocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent can infer the purpose but must decide on its own when this tool is preferable to list_bookings or other listing tools.

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