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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing cost ('Free') and the absence of side effects ('does not post or send anything'), and it summarizes the return payload. It adds real behavioral 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then cost and side-effect constraints. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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 steps in to describe the return value (a link plus one-line share text), and for a parameterless-capable read tool the cost, scope, and side-effect profile are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents hash and index; the description adds the semantics that either parameter narrows the result to one passage while their absence yields the whole-story link. That mapping is meaningful beyond the field descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (get a share link) and defines scope precisely: whole story or a single passage selected by hash or index, plus a one-line share text. It does not name a sibling like read_passage or quote_passage, so it is clear but not sibling-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?

It states the use case directly ('Use it to show your user what was written') and adds an explicit negative boundary ('It does not post or send anything'), which steers the agent away from mistaking it for a sharing/publishing action. No named alternative tool is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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