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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the important nuance that no scan actually runs here and the user must act on the returned link. It does not describe the link's format or validity lifetime, but for a link-builder that is a minor 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical scope constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive link builder with annotations covering safety, the description supplies what matters: what is produced and that the scan happens elsewhere. The missing piece is input format guidance for the website value, which the schema does not cover either.

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%, so the description must carry the weight for the single 'website' parameter. It only says the value is 'user-supplied' and gets 'filled in' – no guidance on whether a scheme, domain, or full URL is expected, and no mention of the 255-character limit. That leaves ambiguity an agent could trip on.

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 concrete verb and output: 'Create a link to the CyberLens website scanner with the user-supplied website filled in', and explicitly bounds scope with 'This tool only builds a link.' An agent can tell this apart from the sibling tools, which retrieve scans or explain checks rather than construct a scanner URL.

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?

Makes the division of labor clear: the tool builds the link, the user reviews the target and initiates the scan on CyberLens. It does not name when to prefer this over siblings such as explain_website_check, so choice among alternatives is left implicit.

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