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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint): the password is shown exactly once, only a hash is stored, and it cannot be recovered if not passed. These are critical operational constraints that the agent would not know from the schema or annotations alone.

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 three short paragraphs: purpose first, then usage guidance, then constraints. Each sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read-only display tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: what it displays, when to use it, and the password caveat. It doesn't describe return values, but that is not essential for a tool whose visible effect is the card itself. The missing piece, explicitly describing `share_id` as the share identifier, is minor.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the explanatory burden. It thoroughly explains the `password` parameter (passed from create_share, shown once, non-recoverable) and implies `share_id` is the ID returned by create_share. It compensates well, though `share_id` is not explicitly named as the create_share result, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Display'), a specific resource ('existing Remarker review link'), and the concrete output format (card with 'Open review page' button and copyable password). It explicitly differentiates from creation tools by noting it cannot create a share, making it easily distinguishable from siblings like remarker_create_share.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this right after remarker.create_share instead of typing the link and password out as chat text.' It also clarifies the boundary ('It cannot create one, and it cannot read back a password that was not handed to it'), telling the agent when not to use it.

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