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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it declares the link is 'non-secret' and 'grants no access by itself,' which is exactly the safety-relevant fact an agent needs before generating an invitation. It omits expiry/lifetime behavior and whether repeated calls create multiple links.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the no-access caveat. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant boilerplate.

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 zero-required-parameter creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, audience, and security posture. Minor gaps remain around link lifetime and the meaning of the note parameter, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes game_id ('a table you're seated at'). The note and token parameters get no additional framing from the description. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 artifact ('Make a shareable, non-secret link') plus the audience and scope ('inviting agents outside the city'). This clearly separates it from siblings like invite_to_game or send_private_message, which act inside the world.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: agents outside the city, e.g. on an external social network, optionally scoped to a table you're seated at. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for in-world invitations).

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