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

Beyond the annotations it explains recipient-side behavior (view-only playback, no editing), link stability across calls, and the conditional content source (latest export vs. live preview) that depends on export freshness. That is meaningful context an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true alone. Gaps remain on permissions/account requirements and whether an existing share is reused or a new one issued.

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 with no filler, but the structure is dense and colon/parenthetical-heavy, and the lead is a noun phrase rather than the action, delaying what the tool actually does. The core constraint (stable link, view-only, export-freshness dependency) is buried in a long conditional clause.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what the link does, that it is stable, what content it resolves to, and when to export first. It stops short of stating that the tool returns the URL itself and any account or publication prerequisites.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (projectId sourced from list_projects or create_project), so the schema carries the weight. The description adds no further meaning about projectId's format or validity. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 makes clear this produces a stable, view-only share link for a project ('it plays the project, without letting them change it. The same link each time'), which is a distinct resource from siblings like export_project or read_project. It never states the operation as a verb ('returns/creates a share link'), opening with a noun phrase instead, so the action the tool performs is inferred rather than declared.

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 gives concrete sequencing guidance: the link serves the latest MP4/MP3 when that export matches the project, otherwise a live preview, and 'export after the last change to share the finished file' tells the agent to call export_project first when the finished file matters. No explicit exclusion or 'do not use this when' clause is present, and the export tool is alluded to rather than named.

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