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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing workspace-scoped visibility ('reads only links this LinkDrop account made in this workspace'), the 2-second polling cadence and 20-second cap behavior, the 60-minute expiry rule, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted author/reader text. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose and status, and essentially every clause carries needed information since there is no output schema. It is, however, a single dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals that is harder to scan than a short status list would be.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns and does so: the doc {docId, title, status, shareUrl, version} payload, the email-image asset payload with imgTag, the null-asset deletion case, and that doc appears only once a document is created or changed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds real semantics the schema lacks: waitSeconds only has effect while status is started/uploaded/processing, polls every 2 seconds, and is bypassed entirely for pending links.

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 verb+resource (check the state of an upload link) and immediately scopes it to links made by lnkdrp_create_upload_link or lnkdrp_create_email_asset_upload_link, distinguishing it from the whole create_* / get_* sibling set. The status vocabulary makes the returned concept unambiguous.

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?

Clear about the calling context: use it on a link returned by the two create tools, and use waitSeconds only for started/uploaded/processing while a pending link is answered at once. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives (e.g. get_share or list_share_links) or state what not to use it for, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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