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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the Pro-tier entitlement requirement and the fact that results are aggregated across all links rather than a single link. It does not discuss pagination or result size, which leaves a small gap.

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, with the aggregate scope and returned dimensions front-loaded ahead of the tier requirement. Every clause contributes information the agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the metrics returned so the agent knows what it will get. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against the several other stats tools in the list, which a single clarifying clause could close.

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% with a single optional parameter that documents both range (1-90) and default (7). The description adds no additional meaning about the lookback window, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get aggregate AgentLink analytics across all your links") and enumerates the returned dimensions: top AI agents, vendors, frameworks, models, and daily click trends. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_agentlink_stats, get_aggregate_stats, or get_link_stats, so an agent must infer the scope difference.

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?

The description usefully states the gating prerequisite ("Requires Pro tier or higher") and the account-wide scope, which implies usage for aggregate reporting. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_aggregate_stats or get_link_stats, nor does it state exclusions, so the agent has to guess among similar analytics tools.

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