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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the conditional behavior that widget_id changes the payload to include embed code, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or response shape. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence, zero filler, with the space scope front-loaded and the widget_id condition following. Every clause conveys distinct information about an output type.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it enumerates the three principal outputs including the custom-domain variant. It omits format details for the links and the exact behavior when space_id is omitted on multi-space accounts, but it is largely sufficient for a two-parameter read tool.

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 only 50% (widget_id has no description), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that widget_id scopes the result to that widget's copy-paste embed code. space_id's 'for one space' framing reinforces the schema's optionality note, adding marginal value. It falls short of fully documenting the empty-widget_id case.

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 enumerates exactly what is returned: collection form links, the hosted wall-of-love URL, and a widget's embed code. It is specific about the resource (share links/embed code) and scoped to one space, so an agent can distinguish it from generic getters. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is only implied through the conditional 'with widget_id, that widget's copy-paste embed code,' which tells the agent when the embed branch applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is mentioned, so the agent must infer the context.

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