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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: only active links are returned, URLs are not exposed because only hashes are stored, and each link includes an id. It does not cover ordering or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 three compact sentences. It front-loads the active-link scope, then adds privacy context about URL hashing, then notes the id field. Every sentence adds useful information without filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and important privacy behavior. It omits ordering and pagination details, but those are minor for this simple listing operation.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline score is 4 because the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the signed-in user's active Joiva share links and enumerates the returned fields (kind, day, expiry, view count). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as joiva_revoke_share or joiva_share_day, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: inspect the user's active, non-expired, non-revoked share links. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no reference to alternatives like joiva_revoke_share or joiva_share_day.

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