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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the previous link stops working (the concrete destruction implied by destructiveHint=true), that Starter and paused workspaces are capped at 24 hours, and the exact retry contract for idempotency_key. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (access scope, replacement behavior, plan limits, retry contract), with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler.

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 mutation/expiry/idempotency behaviors are all covered. The only real gap is that it never states who is permitted to create a share link or whether the resulting URL is retrievable elsewhere.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the expiry enum and idempotency_key semantics. The description reinforces the idempotency retry behavior and the plan-based expiry cap but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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' — plus the scope of access ('anyone with the address can open'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_checkout_link, get_free_brief_link, and get_public_brief, which an agent can rule out from the description alone.

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 concrete operating context: a new link replaces the old one, plan tiers constrain expiry length, and idempotency_key must be sent for retries. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer an alternative sibling (e.g. get_free_brief_link or create_checkout_link), so no exclusions are stated.

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