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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the phrase 'with their settings,' a faint hint about return content, and says nothing about permission requirements, pagination, or what happens when a document has no links.

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?

It is short with no filler, but it is an unpunctuated sentence fragment that omits the actor and verb, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 read tool with one parameter and annotations present, a complete definition would at least name the document_id input and indicate that results are a collection of links with settings. Neither the input contract nor the shape of the result is described, and there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter document_id is not mentioned in the description at all, so no meaning (format, source, constraints) is added beyond the bare integer type. Not zero-parameter, so the baseline-4 rule does not apply.

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 fragment 'All share links of a document with their settings' identifies the resource (share links) and its scope (per document), but it lacks a verb and reads as a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does. It is distinguishable from create_link by implication only, not by any explicit contrast.

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 guidance on when to call this versus create_link, fetch, or list_documents. No prerequisites (document access, permissions) or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer that this is the read path for a document's links.

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