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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add return-shape and filtering semantics — which it does by enumerating every status value and explaining what each means (redirects, self-resolving CHECKING, etc.). It does not state a maximum page depth or any rate limit, a minor gap given the otherwise rich disclosure.

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 core purpose, scope, and ordering before the status legend and pagination notes. The status enumeration and empty-result phrase are long but each carries operational value; nothing is filler, though the single-sentence-with-semicolons style makes it denser than ideal.

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 fully carries the return format: per-line short link, destination, visit count, and status, plus the sentinel for an empty result. Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, yet the description still adds real meaning the schema lacks: search and tag combine as an AND filter ('a link must match both'), and page advancement is spelled out as 'one higher' for the next page. That is genuine additive semantics rather than restatement.

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 ('Lists the signed-in user's own hrva.cc short links') plus ordering and page size, and explicitly bounds the scope ('links of other accounts never appear'), which separates it from account-spanning siblings like moderation_summary. The purpose is unmistakable without opening 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?

Gives an explicit use case tied to an alternative: find a link's short URL before calling link_stats. It also documents how to continue ('call it again with page one higher') and how to recognize exhaustion ('No links found.'), leaving nothing about when and how to call it to inference.

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