Show a browser guest link

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: owner-only authorization, local-state-only sourcing, Funnel availability being reported separately, and no OIDC or tailnet account requirement. One wrinkle: "tokens are shown only when explicitly requested" is not backed by any parameter, so the mechanism is unclear.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the authorization gate ("Owner-only") before the operation itself. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the token/account clauses edge toward implementation trivia an agent may not need for selection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers scope, authorization, and data source adequately; the only gap is what the id refers to and what an unknown id yields.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter `id` is undocumented. The phrase "for one app" weakly implies that id selects the app, which is some compensation, but format, expected values, and failure behavior are left entirely to inference.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("show browser guest grants for one app"), which is clearly a single-record read. It implies the single-item scope that separates it from guest_list, but never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

"Owner-only" establishes a precondition, and "for one app" implies the single-item retrieval case. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of guest_list or what happens if the grant does not exist — usage is only implied.

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