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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool 'Does not collect email or other PII' and returns a URL for a human or agent to open, disclosing both the action and an important non-effect. It doesn't detail all possible behaviors, but for this simple tool it is sufficiently transparent.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the core return value and then adds a clarifying behavioral note. Every part earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's extreme simplicity—zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations—the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns and a key non-side-effect. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('the sales/demo booking URL (weav.com/sales)'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing or get_signup. There is no ambiguity about what the tool provides.

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?

It implies the use case: when you need the demo booking URL and want to open it directly. It also clarifies that no PII collection is involved, which sets expectations for the agent. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter URL getter this is adequate.

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