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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the prior link is invalidated, a 3-per-day cap, and a 409 response once the account is claimed. It does not explain the response shape in detail or how the returned link is delivered, but the side effects and limits an agent needs are 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 compact sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded, followed by usage conditions and limits. Every clause carries operational information, with no filler or repeated title text.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, side effects, rate limits, and the error case. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Only if your client cannot send the Authorization header'). The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (get a new claim_url) and adds the precondition 'Unclaimed only', which immediately separates it from any sibling tool in the list. No sibling deals with claim links, and the phrase 'the previous claim link stops working' makes the effect 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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: use when the claim_url was lost and GET /v1/me no longer shows it, or when the link leaked. It also names the exclusion (only while unclaimed) and the failure/limit conditions, leaving nothing to inference.

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