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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it explains the output structure (derived vs free), the meaning of 'canon' and 'surface' sources, and how these addresses relate to the reading pass report. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but each sentence contributes value: it explains output types, definitions, usage guidance, and the relationship to reading passes. It could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main output.

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 simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the two lists contain, how derived differs from free, and why this matters before setting targets. Nothing essential 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?

The only parameter project_id is fully described in the schema with a hint to call list_projects. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter itself, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 title and description clearly state the tool retrieves link target addresses for a brand. It explains the two output lists (derived and free), distinguishing this read operation from sibling set_link_targets, and the verb 'get' plus resource 'link_targets' is specific.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to read this before setting anything ('Read it before setting anything'), and explains that derived addresses do not need to be added. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies the workflow with set_link_targets.

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