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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the payload rides in the URL fragment so the payer's browser never transmits it to a server, the payer must review and confirm in-app, and the credential requirement is explicit ('your public Gloam address, never a key'). That is exactly the kind of beyond-schema disclosure this dimension rewards.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the mechanics, then the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place — no restating of the title or schema fields.

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 should ideally state that the tool returns the link string; it says it 'makes a link' but never explicitly names the return value. Everything else an agent needs — privacy model, payer flow, credential requirement, network/asset context — is present, so the gap 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with per-parameter docs for format, length limits, defaults and enums, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes the fields ('address, amount, asset and note') and reinforces that the address is public, adding little beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Make a link that asks someone to pay your Gloam address') and immediately scopes it as private. No sibling tool creates payment requests, so there is nothing to confuse it with, and the follow-up sentences pin down exactly what artifact is produced.

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 explains what the link does and the flow it triggers, which implies when to use it, but never states an explicit condition or names an alternative (e.g. gloam_plan_deposit or gloam_mpp_how_to). An agent can infer the use case but gets no guidance on when this is the wrong tool.

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