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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false — the generic mutation profile. The description adds real context beyond that: the publish prerequisite, the fact that a respondent-facing `url` and `availableCustomDomains` are returned, and the intended follow-up mutation. It does not describe rate limits, auth, or what happens on duplicate links, 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the blocking prerequisite, then the return contents, then the follow-up call. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description usefully documents what comes back (`url`, `availableCustomDomains`) and the required prior state, which covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining hole is the meaning/effect of `expiresAt` and `maxClaims`, which the description never addresses.

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 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters. `expiresAt` and `maxClaims` are semantically loaded for a share link (expiry semantics, claim counting, whether 0/omitted means unlimited) and are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create a share link for a form') and situates the tool in the share-link family, distinguishing it from the read (formShareLink_list) and mutation (formShareLink_update) siblings by name. An agent can identify it immediately.

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 precondition ('Form must be published first (form_publish)') and an explicit follow-up path ('follow up with formShareLink_update({customDomainId, customSlug})'), naming the sibling tools involved. The condition that selects this tool versus the alternatives is spelled out rather than inferred.

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