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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: results are filtered to active links only, non-managers will not get usable URLs (a permission-dependent response shape), and the returned links are bearer secrets requiring careful handling. Only the return payload structure is left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed and with what scope, who gets usable URLs, and how to handle the output. The scoping clause is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, permissions, and output sensitivity, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the returned fields (link, expiry, access options) as a shape, which would have made it self-sufficient.

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 parameter 'id' is documented as 'Contract ID' with a uuid format, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about which contract to pass or what happens for a contract with no shares, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but no better.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List active external links') plus the scope qualifier 'active', which implicitly separates it from clm_create_contract_share and clm_revoke_contract_share. It does not name those siblings outright, so an agent must infer that create/revoke are the mutating counterparts.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many clm_* share/access siblings (clm_get_contract_access, clm_revoke_contract_share). The manager-permission note is a behavioral fact rather than a usage selection rule, so the intended trigger for calling this tool 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.