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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context by saying only 'active public' links are returned, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or what constitutes an active versus revoked link.

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 a single compact phrase with zero wasted words and the key resource/scope is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but it remains appropriately brief for a simple list tool.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return contents beyond 'active public links', which is a modest gap given there is no output schema.

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 sole productionId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that a production scopes the result but adds no syntax, format, or additional parameter meaning.

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 phrase identifies a specific resource ('share links') and scope ('active public links of a production'), making it clear this is a read/list operation. It does not use an explicit verb, but an agent can distinguish it from create_share_link and revoke_share_link by the noun and the 'active public' qualifier.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_production or list_productions, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage is only implied by 'of a production'.

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