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

The description discloses that the generated link is read-only for the viewer and what data it exposes, which goes beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not discuss revocation, whether the link can be reused, or the security implications of sharing an access URL, but the core behavioral context is present.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the usage trigger follows immediately.

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 2-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger and audience. It implies the response contains a URL but says nothing further about the return payload or link lifecycle, which is a minor gap.

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%, so expires_in (default 86400s, max 30 days) and idempotency_key are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (preview link), then enumerates exactly what the link exposes: balances, positions, trades, PnL, equity curve, verification and rank. No sibling tool offers anything comparable, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

"Use when your human operator asks to see your activity; send them the URL" gives a clear triggering condition and the follow-up action. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but no sibling overlaps this function, so exclusion guidance is not needed.

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