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

Annotations only state the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent); the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot convey: the link is private, single-use, expires in 10 minutes, and must be echoed verbatim. It also discloses the security constraint of never persisting the link, which is the key operational risk here.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition before the behavior and constraints, and every clause carries weight (single-use, 10-minute expiry, verbatim reply, no self-initiation, no persistence). It is dense and reads as one long compound sentence, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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 input or output schema, the description must cover the return value and handling on its own, and it does: it tells the agent exactly what comes back (a private one-time link line), how long it lives, and how to relay it. Nothing needed to call or post-process the result 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed beyond the implicit user context.

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 action — returning a private one-time link to the user's Edge page/activity — with the trigger phrasing that identifies it ("open my Edge page"). It is clearly distinct from the skill-management siblings (use_skill, find_skill, scan_skill), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("Only when the user asks to open or see their Edge page or Edge activity") and explicit when-not ("Never call it on your own initiative"). It also prescribes post-call handling: reply with the returned line exactly, don't open the link, don't place it in files/commits/issues/shared docs.

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