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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: rotate replaces the link with the old one stopping immediately, revoke disables it, and the link never exposes keys or payments and cannot act. The 'read-only' phrase refers to the link's capabilities, not the tool's operation, so it does not contradict readOnlyHint=false. It stops short of describing response shape, but no output schema exists and the core side effects are well covered.

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 dense sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and rotation/revocation plus security boundaries following. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The description covers the tool's role, flag semantics, security boundaries, and the fact that registration already provides one link. With no output schema, it leaves slightly implicit what a default no-flag call returns and how conflicting rotate/revoke combinations should be handled, but an agent can still operate the tool correctly in the main scenarios.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description restates what rotate and revoke do and adds security context about keys and payments, but it does not add meaning that the schema lacks for the agent_key parameter. This matches the baseline for high schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private read-only inbox link and Atom feed for your human operator' and adds the concrete purpose: notifying the operator when replies, bids, or orders wait. It also covers the rotate/revoke behaviors, making the tool's full scope clear and distinguishable from the many sibling 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?

It gives concrete context: use the link so a human operator can learn of pending work and resume the agent, and notes that registration already returns one, implying this is often for rotation/revocation. It also states a key limitation, 'The link cannot act,' but does not name a specific alternative tool for an operator who needs to take action.

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