Links to open the diagram and its PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with genuinely non-obvious context: on the hosted server documents are retained 30 days so short links resolve and anyone with a link can open them, whereas elsewhere the document travels in the link after '#' and is stored nowhere.

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 'Links to a document' and each clause carries weight, covering viewer_url contents, pdf_url, and the storage/retention difference. It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description adds the retention and privacy context an agent would otherwise lack. For a simple read-only link generator with one fully documented parameter, this is nearly complete.

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 the single 'document' parameter is fully documented in the schema (accepts a JSON object, its JSON text, or a local file path). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it produces links (viewer_url and pdf_url) to open a uniwire document in the web editor and as a PDF. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like render, wiring, or bom, which perform different functions.

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 explains what the returned links do and where the document is stored, which implies the use case (obtain openable/downloadable links). However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over render, wiring, or bom, nor any prerequisites for calling it.

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