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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the link is single-use, valid 30 days, repeated calls return the same open link, and redemption copies the build into the recipient's own Amplify account. That side-effect context is valuable and not inferable from annotations.

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?

One dense sentence covering deliverable, link semantics, and side effect; no filler. The trailing 'plus a preview address at once' is slightly awkward but earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value meaning; it names the claim link and preview address but not the shape of the response (fields, structure, or whether both are always present). Adequate but leaves gaps for a tool whose entire value is its return payload.

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% and the description never mentions projectId or the required identifier format. For a single required parameter with no schema documentation, the description should at least say which project the result belongs to.

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 the specific resource delivered: a finished build's claim link plus preview address, which distinguishes it from get_build_status (which reports progress). It is phrased as a noun phrase rather than 'returns X for project Y', so the action is somewhat implicit.

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 phrase 'a finished build' implies a precondition (build must be complete), hinting that get_build_status should be checked first, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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