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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing idempotent create-or-fetch behavior, the split auth model (credential required to create, none required to view the resulting share_url), and the renderable output formats. It does not cover link expiry, revocation, or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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, then constraints, then auth, then an example — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. Minor waste: the stored-graph/persisted constraint is asserted twice and the example JSON largely duplicates what the schema already declares.

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 no explanation, and every other agent-relevant fact is present: required persistence precondition, auth path, credential-free viewing, and supported render formats. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 a 3 is the floor; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining why run_id must be persisted (ephemeral run_simulation ids are unusable) and by restating the api_key-vs-Bearer alternative. The inline example reinforces the required argument shape but adds little the schema does not already say.

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 ('Creates (or fetches the existing) public share link for a PERSISTED run') and immediately names the sibling it must not be confused with (run_simulation). An agent can distinguish it from get_results or run_simulation without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('when you want to hand a result to someone without giving them API access') plus an explicit exclusion ('only for a run saved via the stored-graph flow: a run_simulation result is ephemeral and has no usable run_id'). That is exactly the routing information an agent needs versus the sibling run tools.

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