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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is lower. The description adds two things annotations cannot: an entitlement/plan requirement (Pro tier or higher) and the fact that results carry total agent-click counts, which tells the agent what it gets back. It does not state sort order or how the period window affects the counts.

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 scoping filter plus return content are front-loaded; the plan requirement sits last as a short qualifier. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this covers purpose, scope, access requirement, and return content. The only meaningful gap is ordering of the returned links (e.g., by click count or recency), which an agent would want to know given the emphasis on counts.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both limit and period_days fully documented including defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only an implicit tie between the look-back window and the reported counts, which is not enough to rise above baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the links") and narrows it with a distinctive filter: links that have received at least one AI-agent click, returning their agent-click counts. This separates it from the generic list_links without naming that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 Pro-tier prerequisite is genuine usage context (an agent knows it may fail or be unavailable on lower plans), and the AI-click filter implies when this tool is the right choice. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of list_links or get_agentlink_stats/get_agentlink_account_stats, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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