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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description earns credit by explaining exactly what the destruction means ('A new link replaces the old one, which stops working') and by disclosing the plan-imposed lifetime cap. It does not cover permissions or who can revoke a link, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the replacement and plan caveats.

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 values need not be explained, and the annotations plus description together cover the safety and lifetime profile of a mutation tool. The only real gap is that the description says nothing about whether the caller needs specific permissions or ownership to create the link.

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 signal_id, idempotency_key, include_notes and the expiry enum are already documented. The description's plan-limit sentence largely restates the expiry field description ('any other choice becomes 24h there') without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Makes a public link to one signal') and clarifies the audience ('anyone with the address can open'). This distinguishes it from the sibling read tools get_public_brief and get_free_brief_link, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against alternatives such as get_free_brief_link or get_public_brief. The plan-related sentence is a constraint on the link's lifetime, not a routing rule for choosing this tool.

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