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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses expiry limits and defaults, reusability of the link, which webhook events carry the progress plus the external.id/source "api" fields, the one-time notice shown to the person, the returned fields, and the revoke endpoint. That is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, effects, return values and revocation in a compact block. It is dense but every sentence carries operational information; only the expiry restatement overlaps the schema.

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 still names the returned url, expiresAt and jti, and explains how downstream progress is observed and how to revoke a link. Nothing essential for calling this three-parameter tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: externalId is what ties the link to webhook payloads via external.id, and the warning not to put an email or name in it clarifies the "sem PII" constraint. expiresIn is largely restated from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it generates a /p link for a published tour that identifies the person by externalId, without a form. That is enough to separate it from every sibling here (publish, set_lead_capture, create_client) without opening any 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?

It makes the key usage context explicit: the tour must be published, no form is shown, and the link can be opened repeatedly. It never names an alternative path (for example form-based lead capture) or states when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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