Get Omnivox Service Link

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

Annotations only declare read-only/non-destructive/non-idempotent; the description adds the traits that actually matter here - the link logs the browser into the user's full Omnivox account, must be treated like a password, expires in 15 minutes, and any action taken on the page needs the user's explicit authorization. That is exactly the abuse and lifetime context an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and why, followed by usage, then the security and expiry warnings. No sentence is redundant and the most consequential warning sits early.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape; it covers the remaining unknowns (account-level login scope, 15-minute expiry, authorization requirement) that determine whether the agent handles the result safely and correctly.

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% with a fully documented enum, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description still adds the framing that the chosen service is web-only and unreachable otherwise, which raises it slightly above the baseline.

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 pre-authenticated link to an Omnivox web-only service) and enumerates examples: lockers, transcript, progression chart, advisor appointments. The clause 'these services have no API here' separates it cleanly from the API-backed siblings such as get-grades-summary or get-schedule without needing to name them.

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 concrete operating instructions: open the link yourself to read the page for the user, or hand it to the user, and require explicit per-action authorization before doing anything on the page. The when-to-use criterion (services that lack an API) is clear, though it never names the specific sibling link tools (get-document-link, get-assignment-submit-link) an agent might confuse it with.

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