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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description usefully adds that the generated link tracks its own views and that multiple links (one per channel) are an intended pattern. It does not mention rate limits or the apiKey/auth requirement, but the tracking trait is real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose plus labeling example first, return value last. The example is illustrative rather than padding, though the trailing 'Returns the URL to share' is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 spelled out, and the description covers purpose, use case, and the label convention. Remaining gaps are minor: nothing about whether repeated links to the same card are allowed or the auth fallback, which the schema already handles.

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 the baseline applies: all three parameters (name, slug, apiKey) are already documented in the schema, including the labelling intent and the auth fallback. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a labelled link to the card') and adds the distinguishing trait that the link tracks its own views, which separates it from get_shareable_links or create_or_update_card. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implied through the example of one link per outreach channel ('LinkedIn DMs', 'Conference 2026'); there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_shareable_links for reading existing links.

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