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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context beyond them by clarifying that no message is transmitted and that the human-review-then-send_text workflow is mandatory. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive (e.g. whether link creation is irreversible or supersedes an existing link), which is the one gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the safety constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage, the definition covers the workflow well but omits what is actually returned (a link URL? a draft object?) and any detail on the amount parameter. An agent knows what not to do but not fully what it will get back.

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% for two parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. 'for a job' weakly implies job_id, but the optional 'amount' parameter is never mentioned — no currency, no default, no behavior when omitted — leaving half the input surface undocumented everywhere.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Make a card payment link for a job') and a second concrete output ('draft the text that carries it'). It also separates itself from send_text by name, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit when/when-not clause: 'Nothing is sent: show the draft to the owner, then call send_text.' That states both the boundary of this tool's action and the exact alternative to call next, leaving nothing to inference.

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