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

The description does not contradict the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and is consistent with 'build' implying a non-destructive, possibly external action. However, it adds little behavioral insight beyond the input scope; details like link expiration, side effects, or authentication are absent. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, 22 words, and immediately front-loads the main action ('Build onboarding link'). The second sentence adds the purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes; no filler or repetition.

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 is short but sufficient given the rich schema and existing output schema. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema is present. The core purpose and input context are covered adequately for the tool's complexity, though a note about prerequisites (e.g., completeness of legal entity data) could enhance clarity.

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 has 100% description coverage for all nested fields, providing detailed meaning for 'legal_entity_data'. The tool description only mentions 'legal entity data' without adding parameter-specific syntax or examples, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the verb 'Build' and the resource 'onboarding link', with a specific scope ('for received legal entity data') and outcome ('finish onboarding in Vivid system'). Although no siblings exist to differentiate from, the purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 for when to use the tool: when legal entity data has been received and an onboarding link needs to be generated. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but with no sibling tools, this is acceptable. The context is specific enough for an agent to identify the appropriate scenario.

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