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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: the link works once, in any browser, expires in 15 minutes, and the tool always answers ok so it never reveals whether an email has an account. It also notes the destination page still checks permissions.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries routing, behavior, or parameter information. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the full screen list partly repeats the schema enum, which keeps it from being a clean 5.

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 has a nested params object and an output schema, and the description covers behavior, expiry, account privacy, screen-specific parameter requirements, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 only 33%, but the description compensates by mapping screens to the params they read: shop_id for shop screens, job_id for capture and subcontractors, shop_id plus optional date for board, kind and id for override, and keys for card and hub. This adds substantial meaning beyond the generic params object 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?

States a specific verb and resource: email a one-time sign-in link that opens a named Doing Work screen for a human. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from members.sendPage and explains that the claim screen is refused because the agent connect flow sends its own link.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (to hand the agent's person straight to a page needing a human) and names the alternative for shop-member pages with role checks: members.sendPage. It also excludes the claim screen and explains why.

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