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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, it discloses ordering (newest first), pagination mechanics (pass nextCursor as cursor), cross-library AND-semantics of query matching, the distinction between totalCount and matchCount, what clicks means and that it is available on every plan, and the full ruleLabels taxonomy. That is substantial context the annotations do not carry.

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 purpose, then filters, then return-field semantics, then the pagination handoff — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The twelve-item ruleLabels enumeration makes the block dense, but with no output schema each label is load-bearing 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by naming the return fields (clicks, totalCount, matchCount, nextCursor, ruleLabels) and their meanings. For a four-parameter read-only list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 already 100%, so 3 is the floor, and the description genuinely adds: query searches slug/title/destination "across the whole library" with every word required and case-insensitive, and status "keeps active or disabled links." limit and cursor get only light treatment beyond what the schema says, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb, resource, ownership scope, and ordering: "List the signed-in user's short links, newest first, one page at a time." It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_link by stating that get_link has the full rules, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 clearly frames this as a paged, filtered listing and tells the agent to call get_link when the full rule details are needed, plus explicitly rules out file export and says to format output itself. It doesn't state when *not* to use it or contrast with siblings like get_stats or search_vault, but the operative context is unambiguous.

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