Dashboard pages for what a person must do

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false. The description adds crucial context beyond them: these are human-only steps with no API-key path, and the intended interaction is to hand the link to a person. It doesn't describe the response shape, but with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this is a strong add.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the second sentence delivers the actionable instruction. The topic enumeration is long but each item maps to a real page, so it largely earns its place; minor redundancy with the enum values.

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 single optional-enum parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the human-in-the-loop context an agent needs to use it correctly. Only the returned link/format is unstated, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% and the enum property already has a description ('One page; all of them when left out'), establishing the baseline of 3. The body enumerates the topic meanings and adds a nuance like '(public key only)' for connect_wallet, but mostly restates what the enum values already convey. Adequate but not materially beyond the schema.

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 specific resource ('Perly Pay dashboard pages') and scope ('steps no API key can take'), enumerating exactly which pages it covers. An agent can distinguish this from sibling action tools because it returns links rather than performing the actions. It never states the bare verb 'returns URLs', relying on the phrase 'Give the person the link' to imply output, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 tells the agent both when to use it ('steps no API key can take') and what to do with the result ('Give the person the link and say what to do there'), plus an explicit exclusion ('do not try these through other tools'). The negative guidance rules out attempting these tasks via sibling tools, which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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