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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which are all false) by disclosing that the link is read-only, accessible to anyone without an account, and returns a token and public URL. It also states the authentication and plan requirements, providing rich behavioral context.

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: the first states the core purpose and key characteristics, the second covers return value and requirements. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, access scope, authentication, and plan requirement. It is fully self-contained and leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Create a read-only public share link for a tracked domain's latest report'. It specifies the resource (tracked domain's latest report) and the outcome (public share link), distinguishing it from sibling tools that query, scan, or delete data.

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 this tool is appropriate: it creates a public share link, and it explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requires an owner/admin API key with write or full scope, on a plan that includes public reports.' It doesn't name alternatives but none are needed given the unique purpose.

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