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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the resulting link is public and expiring, which is behavioral context beyond the structured fields; it does not address revocation or auth requirements, keeping it 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the action then the parameter distinction. No filler, and the most important information (what it creates) leads.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Purpose and both ID roles are covered; only minor behavioral details (link revocation, sharing scope beyond 'public') are absent, which is acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the auditId/compareAuditId roles. The description restates essentially the same semantics (auditId = newer/current, compareAuditId = earlier) without adding format, defaults, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 public, expiring Nimo report link') and immediately disambiguates the two ID parameters, so an agent understands the sharing behavior without opening the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. compare_audits) to differentiate from, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

The description gives clear context for the two invocation modes: single-report sharing by default versus before-and-after comparison when compareAuditId is passed. It does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like compare_audits or get_audit_report, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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