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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the auth model ('Requires: demos:read', 'leads:read') and, critically, the degraded behavior without leads:read (labels render as 'Link <code>' and stored personal data is withheld). It also flags the non-obvious pagination/query interaction, which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 with the resource and return shape, then permissions, then pagination — a sensible order. The field enumeration in sentence one is slightly dense but earns its place since there is no output schema. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing returned fields, and it covers auth scopes, redaction behavior, and pagination mechanics. Minor gaps remain: no mention of what `limit` bounds mean in practice or what happens on an invalid/expired cursor, but nothing an agent needs 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 75% and already documents `query`, `cursor`, and `demoId`, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics on top: `query` matches only the labels shown on each page and pagination ignores the query entirely, a caveat absent from the schema. `limit` semantics are left to the schema's default/max, which is adequate.

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 first sentence names the resource (personalized links of a demo), the ordering (newest first), and exactly which fields come back, so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It never explicitly contrasts with the one closely related sibling, create_personalized_links, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 gives operational guidance for use (paginate with `cursor`, `query` only matches labels on the current page) and states the required scope. What's missing is tool-selection guidance: nothing tells the agent when to reach for create_personalized_links or list_leads instead, so the 'when vs alternatives' dimension is only implied.

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