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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the important behavioral context of what becomes publicly exposed, the PII redaction rules (name, phone, email always hidden), the business-name default, and the off switch. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether an old link is invalidated when re-sharing, but it goes well past the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the usage gate front-loaded before the privacy rules and the off switch. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, exposure, privacy defaults, and reversal. The only omission is what the call actually returns (presumably a URL) and whether re-sharing invalidates an existing link, both minor.

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; the description nonetheless adds a real constraint not present in the schema by requiring a finished call, and reinforces the public=false off-switch and show_business default. That is meaningful added meaning rather than repetition.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact: create a public, read-only page for a finished call containing the result and transcript. That is clearly distinct from get_call, list_calls, or place_call in the sibling set, and the agent can tell exactly what the tool produces.

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?

"Only when the user asks" is an explicit gating condition that prevents proactive use, and "public=false turns an existing link off" documents the reverse mode. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no sibling plausibly competes for this action, so the gap is minor.

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