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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note—hidden links never appear—but the reference to 'include_archived' is unsupported by the schema, which may confuse agents.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact note about pagination/sort and hidden links. No filler; each sentence adds information.

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?

The tool has 10 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description cannot fully cover all semantics. However, most remaining parameters have self-explanatory names, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is the lack of any output/return information and the unresolved include_archived reference.

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 only 40%. The description adds helpful examples for `sort` and clarifies `page` is 0-based (though the schema already says that). It does not explain `size`, `tags`, `domains`, `is_favourite`, or `tags_to_exclude`, leaving part of the burden unaddressed.

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 opening phrase 'Search or list the creator's Split links' clearly identifies the action and resource. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the scope ('creator's links') distinguishes it from collection-specific or single-link tools.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The description doesn't mention alternatives such as split_get_link or split_get_collection_links, nor any exclusions for when a different tool would be appropriate.

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