Make a share link for a closed deal

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: content redaction rules, idempotent create-or-return behavior, the auth requirement (GLONGUS_API_KEY), and the return payload (url plus suggested share_text). The one gap is that unshare=true removes a live page while destructiveHint=false — the description discloses the action clearly enough that this reads as intentional scoping rather than a contradiction, but the reversibility (can it be re-shared afterwards?) is left implicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and page contents, then the permission gate, then the unshare escape hatch, then the auth requirement — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense rather than short, but nearly every clause carries an actionable constraint.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and flat inputs, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is created, who may trigger it, what is returned, how to undo it, and what credential is required. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the meaning of unshare ('take the page down') and adds the create-or-return semantic that implies transaction_id identifies an existing deal, but provides no format or edge-case detail beyond that.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Creates (or returns) the public replay page for one of your deals', then enumerates the page contents (item, asking vs final price, every move) and what is excluded (owner and other agent). No sibling tool shares deals, and the 'or returns' phrasing signals idempotency, so an agent knows exactly what this produces.

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 an explicit precondition ('ONLY call this after your owner explicitly said yes to sharing this deal'), an explicit post-action ('hand them the url; never post it anywhere yourself'), and the inverse operation ('Pass unshare: true to take the page down'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative pathway are all stated.

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