Shareable report + badge

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: the tool requires a paid subscription, explains the free-trial condition, and describes the return payload (link + HTML snippet). This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is a bit long but each sentence delivers essential information: core purpose, usage signals, and subscription fallback. The most important information is front-loaded, and the pricing detail is relevant context packed compactly.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (a link and HTML badge snippet), prerequisites (subscription), and fallback guidance. An agent has all necessary information to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 only parameter 'domain' is already documented in the schema with an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, 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: 'Get a shareable report URL and the embeddable badge snippet.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming the use case ('share,' 'export,' 'send a client,' 'embed') and even points to get_sample_audit as the alternative for non-subscribers.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when someone wants to share/export/send/embed') and when not to ('if the user doesn't have one, call get_sample_audit first'). The subscription prerequisite and fallback behavior are spelled out directly.

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