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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Doing Work never sees the card number and that saving a new card replaces the old one, but it omits link expiration, single-use behavior, required permissions beyond "owner or office," and what the tool actually returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important behavioral caveat (security) and replacement rule. No wasted language.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with one parameter, the description covers the conceptual purpose and key security guarantees. It still leaves gaps around permissions, link lifecycle, and return value, which matters because no structured fields fill those gaps.

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 0% and the only parameter, customer_id, is not explicitly mentioned in the description. The phrase "the customer" hints that the link is scoped to a customer, but it does not explain the parameter's role, required status, or UUID format.

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 action: generating a secure page/link for a customer to save a card. It implicitly distinguishes this from cards_get and cards_remove by focusing on card collection rather than retrieval or removal, though it never names those siblings.

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 gives one clear usage instruction ("Send the link to the customer"), which implies when to use it. However, it does not state when to use this instead of cards_get, cards_remove, or other link-generating tools, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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