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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool creates a studio, project, and collaborators as placeholders, and returns a URL. It also mentions that if contactEmail is provided, RoyalTea emails the link directly. This is transparent about the creation side effect and the email behavior, though it does not cover edge cases like error handling or link expiry.

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 the primary action and outcome front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the one-click aspect, the target audience (non-account holder), the return type (URL), and the creation behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 explicitly states the return type ('Returns a URL'), which is essential. It also covers the core flow: design a plan, generate a link, and the link triggers creation upon signup. Minor gaps like what happens when contactEmail is not provided (link presumably returned in chat) are not addressed, but they are not critical for successful invocation. Overall, the description is complete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds context by explaining that collaborators are added as placeholders and that splitNote is a summary of terms, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Turn a plan into a ONE-CLICK setup link') and a clear resource (a RoyalTea setup URL). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_revenue_split and draft_revenue_agreement by focusing on the act of creating a studio through a link. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use after you've helped someone design a revenue-share setup and they want it real.' This tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the sibling set.

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