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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't: the tool returns a link rather than opening anything, and the agent cannot drive the user's browser.

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-loaded with the core action and constrained to two sentences with no filler. The parenthetical record-type examples and the browser caveat both earn their place.

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 correctly explains the return value (a link) and the interaction model. It stops short of edge cases such as missing records or link expiry, but is otherwise sufficient for a simple read 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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only id_column is documented), so the description must compensate. It maps the inputs well ('Give the table and the record's id (or another unique column in id_column)'), but adds no detail on accepted table names or id formats, leaving the compensation partial.

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 and resource ('Get a link that opens one record') and clarifies the record types (customer, job, invoice). It conveys a distinct value proposition versus data-returning siblings, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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 'for the user to click — you can't open their browser yourself', which signals this is for handing a viewable link to a human. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative sibling (e.g. record_history or find_* lookups).

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