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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the link embeds state in a URL fragment, ids are never validated or looked up, unknown ids surface as missing on the site, and opening reveals previews, licenses, install commands and a prompt builder.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: output artifact, downstream effect of opening, and the non-validation caveat. The inline URL example is slightly bulky but earns its place by showing the format.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive link builder with no output schema, it covers what is produced, what happens when the link is opened, and the significant caveat about unresolvable ids. Only minor gaps remain, such as the item-count limit and whether the link expires.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning: 'model' is scoped per AI API provider item rather than globally, and ids are explicitly not resolved server-side, which tells the caller there is no error on bad input. It does not mention the 30-item cap, which stays in the schema only.

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 ('Make a codeitso cart link') and even shows the resulting URL shape, so the output form is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling codeitso_open_cart by explaining that opening the generated link is what loads the cart, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 says the link is built 'from chosen material ids' and the schema notes ids come from other codeitso tools, which shapes when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus codeitso_open_cart or codeitso_get_materials, and no stated prerequisites, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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