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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data is a nightly-checker snapshot (not a live check), some entries are live with follow status, and some pages failed to read and require human attention. It stops short of describing ordering, staleness windows, or result size.

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, zero filler, and the actionable routing instruction is placed last after the scope. The first sentence is a dense four-item enumeration but every item earns its place by defining what 'links' contains.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return content, and it does so by naming the four result categories an agent will see. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the sole parameter, nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

There is a single workspaceId parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already explains it and points to get_status for discovery. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented params applies.

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 (every link placement the nightly checker has seen for this site) and enumerates its scope precisely: live links with follow status, unreadable pages needing human review, removed links, and won deals lacking a link. This disambiguates it from siblings like list_blocklist or list_keywords without requiring the agent to open the schema.

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 explicitly routes one outcome subset: 'Answer the pages it could not read with answer_link' — a concrete when-to-use-this-alternative instruction. However, it gives no general guidance on when to call list_links versus other listing tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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