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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description goes beyond that by disclosing the security model: the link grants bearer access and its URL should only be returned to the user. That is genuinely useful, non-derivable context, though it omits whether re-issuing a link duplicates or supersedes an existing one.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the creation purpose is front-loaded and the security caveat is appended where it matters most.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and security posture but not the parameter formats or the return value beyond 'URL'. Adequate minimum viability with clear gaps.

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 compensate. 'Named' implies the label parameter and 'optional expiry' implies expires, but the format of expires (relative vs absolute, ISO vs duration) and the document_id constraint are unexplained, leaving material gaps a caller could get wrong.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a named document viewing link') plus a key modifier (optional expiry), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling shareout_revoke_link or the various read tools, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as shareout_revoke_link for teardown or shareout_list_links for inspection. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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