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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context: postflow_url requires a logged-in user, public_share_url is null until public sharing is enabled, and passing enable_public_sharing mutates that state (explaining the readOnlyHint=false). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 purpose, and each sentence carries useful information, but the final sentence about URL formats and {post_id}/{public_id} templates is long and somewhat repetitive relative to the value it adds.

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 and no annotations covering return values, the description fully carries that burden by naming and explaining each returned field's meaning and null conditions, so an agent knows exactly what it will receive.

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 50%: enable_public_sharing is already documented in the schema, and the description only restates it as the way to 'turn it on.' The required post_id has no schema description and the description never clarifies its format or origin, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Returns all links of a post') and immediately enumerates the three distinct link types it returns (postflow_url, public_share_url, post_link), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_post or get_posts.

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 trigger ('Use this tool when the user asks for a link to a post') plus an explicit when-not with an alternative: derive links from IDs instead of re-calling. This routes the agent away from redundant calls.

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