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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious failure mode: misconfigured app_links causes BOTH association files to fail silently with no error and links falling back to the browser. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 and dense — the per-view breakdown follows immediately and every clause carries information. The silent-failure warning is slightly verbose relative to a one-parameter read tool, but it is the highest-value content in the description, so it largely earns its space.

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 read-only, single-enum, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what each view returns and the critical verification step. It does not touch on response shape beyond the app_links fields or any auth/scope requirements, but little an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single enum is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining what each enum value actually yields (app_links → association file contents; domains → branded domains plus DNS verification state; web_config → smart banner; esp → email provider link setup), which meaningfully disambiguates the choice.

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 states a specific resource (deep link / tracking domain configuration) and then enumerates exactly what each of the four views returns — team id, bundle id, package, SHA-256 fingerprints, ready flags, DNS verification state. An agent knows precisely what this tool surfaces and how it differs from config siblings like get_app_setup or get_push_config.

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?

It steers usage per view ('app_links is the most important for integration work') and gives a concrete operating instruction — verify the ready flags rather than assuming. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., get_setup_status) or when this tool is the wrong choice, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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