create_technocore_work_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is a pure local calculation, it does not persist, call Technocore, sign, read a key, verify, change eligibility, or establish delivery. The caution to verify with the native verifier further enriches transparency.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, the non-effects are compactly listed, and the verification caveat is placed last as a natural usage warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description fully covers invocation-relevant context: inputs are schema-documented, side effects are clearly denied, and the intended use and caveat are stated. The only notable gap is that, with no output schema, the description does not describe the shape or format of the returned link, though 'derive and return' gives a minimal expectation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text, so the description is not required to repeat parameter details. It adds conceptual context such as 'digest-only' and 'existing AIPOU workReceiptId', but no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Derive and return') and a precise resource ('digest-only external evidence link between an existing AIPOU workReceiptId and a Technocore transport artifact'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling create_paybox_work_link by naming the AIPOU/Technocore domain and the digest-only nature.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage context ('Use it for portable correlation only') and clearly enumerates what the tool does not do, such as persisting, calling Technocore, signing, or establishing delivery. It lacks an explicit named alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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