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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the raw source_token is returned only in the create response, reads return token_hint, and active token-bearing links return public_url. This is meaningful, non-obvious behavior that helps an agent understand the side effects and response semantics.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and constraint are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the critical token exposure behavior. Every sentence 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 seven parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably use the tool. It covers response token behavior but omits the purpose and semantics of optional parameters, idempotency handling, and how the create action relates to the broader link lifecycle.

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 needed to explain the seven parameters but does not. It only implies that job_posting_id must reference a published posting and that source_label relates to the source/referrer concept. Fields like expires_at, request_id, description, referrer_name, and idempotency_key remain entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an opaque source/referral link for a published job posting.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the related source_links siblings (disable, list, read) by focusing on creation, and even adds a key scope constraint ('published job posting').

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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to create a source/referral link for a published job posting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like source_links_read, source_links_list, or source_links_disable, leaving routing between sibling tools to inference.

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