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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds behavior they cannot express: link-preview robots are never counted, source keys enumerate valid app names, and 'direct' includes apps that deliberately hide the referrer. It also discloses that the page cannot be created through this tool.

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 the resource and metric list, then edge cases, then the sibling hand-off — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is on the long side, and the 'which platform sends people / which link they want' framing mildly restates the metric list, but for a tool with no output schema the length is largely earned.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely: named fields, units (last 30 days), ISO country codes, source-key vocabulary, and the two null/false edge states. 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its budget on return-field semantics (clicks30d, topSources, topCountries as ISO codes, source key formats), which is useful but not parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific resource (the workspace's link-in-bio page) and a specific payload (views, clicks30d, total taps, topSources, topCountries for the last 30 days). It explicitly separates itself from get_performance ('For how the posts themselves did, use get_performance'), so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('answer which platform sends people to the creator's offer, and which link they want') and names the alternative tool for the adjacent question (get_performance). It also pre-empts two failure modes: page is null when nothing is set up, and published=false means visitors see 'page not found'.

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