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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real value beyond that by disclosing the return contents (live status, expiry) and, importantly, that the URL is deliberately withheld — a non-obvious behavior. It still says nothing about ordering, counts, or what happens when no links exist.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource definition leading. The middle sentence ('Whether each is live, when it expires.') is a fragment, and the list-of-fields framing is a bit telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does at a high level: two link types plus live status and expiry, explicitly excluding the URL. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though empty-state behavior and link count remain unstated.

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 single parameter business_id has zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Its meaning is largely self-evident from the name and the phrase 'A business's share links', but no format, source, or validation guidance is added.

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 names the resource concretely and enumerates its two variants — the status link ('anyone with it sees progress') and the details form link ('the owner fills in their own details'). The line 'Never the link itself' implicitly separates it from show_share_link, though no sibling is named outright.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only routing signal is the negative one ('Never the link itself'), which hints that show_share_link is the tool for retrieving an actual URL, but the agent must infer that.

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