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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds useful context by revealing that the return includes a secret share link and an expiry, which go beyond a generic read-only label, though it does not address auth requirements or error behavior.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the key questions it answers, followed by the concrete return fields. Every sentence earns its place, though the Q&A phrasing is slightly informal for a tool contract.

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?

This is a simple one-id lookup with no output schema, and the description adequately lists the return payload fields. It is incomplete, though, because it never links the id parameter to the resource or points to list_collections as the way to obtain valid ids, leaving the agent to make that connection itself.

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 0% and the description never explains that the required id parameter is the collection identifier. The id field is simple and inferable from the tool name, but the description provides no explicit parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific verb (returns) and resource (one collection) and enumerates concrete fields: secret share link, file count, total size, expiry. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_transfer or list_collections, so it falls short of top-tier differentiation.

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 implies use when you need a collection's link, size, count, or expiry, but it never states when to choose this over list_collections, list_collection_files, or get_transfer. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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