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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description earns credit beyond them by disclosing the real consequence: the link is public, anyone holding it can see the run's statistics, and the operation returns share_url. It does not say whether the link expires or can be revoked-and-regenerated, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and its return value are front-loaded, with the privacy note and the off-switch following in the second sentence.

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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter mutation with an output schema, so return values need no prose explanation, yet share_url is still called out. Action, exposure semantics, and reversal path are all covered.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains run_id comes from list_runs or save_run. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so 3 is the correct baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Turn on a public read-only link to one of the caller's runs and return it (share_url).' It also names the counterpart tool unshare_run, so an agent can distinguish the on/off pair without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (enabling a public read-only link for a run) and points to unshare_run as the way to reverse it. It doesn't state explicit exclusions such as 'do not use for runs containing sensitive data' or whether a link can be rotated, but the when-to-use case is unambiguous.

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