Create identity check link

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

With readOnlyHint=false declared, the description usefully clarifies the side effect: it may generate a link, but 'changes nothing if they are already verified,' which is meaningful idempotency context. It does not explain permission requirements, whether existing links are reused or rotated, or how the link is delivered.

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, but 'only they can complete it' is stated twice across the second and third sentences, and the return value is restated after already being introduced. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, it does cover the key return value (the link) and the client-completion constraint. It omits link lifetime/expiry, behavior when a link already exists but is unverified, and any routing advice versus the verify family, which leaves gaps for an openWorldHint tool.

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 both 'id' and 'business' are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for one managed business' loosely reinforces the 'business' parameter but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the structured field.

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 concrete verb and resource: fetching/creating the identity check link for one managed business. It is distinguishable from siblings like agenta_verify_submit or agenta_businesses_get. However, the title says 'Create' while the body says 'Get,' leaving the verb slightly ambiguous as to whether this mutates state.

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 implies usage by telling the agent to send the link to the client, and the 'only they can complete it' note frames who acts on it. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the agenta_verify_* tools or when it should not be called.

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