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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool generates: two link formats and the target URL. However, it does not disclose whether generating the slug link persists state, requires a prior simulation, or has any side effects, leaving a moderate transparency 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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives both link variants and the destination URL, with every clause contributing necessary information.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an agent a clear picture of expected outcomes: two shareable URL formats and their purposes. It is slightly incomplete on whether both links are always returned and whether any state is persisted, but overall it is largely self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema is empty and has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed, but it does clarify the tool's output behavior, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action ('Gera links compartilháveis para a simulação') and names two concrete output formats with distinct purposes: query params for the home form and /simular/<slug> for the full interactive dashboard. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling calculation/analysis tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever shareable links to a simulation are needed. It also explains the difference between the two link variants, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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