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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit by disclosing entitlement behavior (Agency-only), the api_locked failure mode on other plans, and that plan limits gate brandMode. It still doesn't say whether repeated calls mint duplicate links (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what the returned value looks like.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action before the plan caveat. Every clause (entitlement, failure mode, brandMode gating) carries information an agent needs.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the plan gate and key error path, and 'share URL' implies the return value. It stops short of covering link lifecycle details (re-invocation behavior, expiry default handling), which are minor given the schema's coverage.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that plan limits determine which brandMode values are accepted, a constraint the enum description alone does not convey. scanId, expiresInDays, and hideTechnical are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mint a client-facing share URL') scoped to 'a completed scan', which no sibling tool (get_report, scan_site, etc.) overlaps with. An agent can identify the operation immediately without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (Agency plan) and the when-not path ('other plans answer api_locked and can share from the app'), which is a genuinely useful fallback. It does not name any MCP alternative because none exists, but the entitlement gating is clear.

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