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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: URLs are never returned because only a hash is stored, meaning a lost URL must be revoked and re-minted rather than recovered, and group-scoped links are out of scope. What it does not cover is ordering, pagination, or whether expired links appear alongside live ones.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the share_id variation, then the URL-hash constraint. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact — no restatement of the name, no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are not required, yet the description still previews payload contents helpfully. For a two-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it largely does: `reference` is explained as the single generation or upload being interrogated, and `share_id` is explained as a mode switch that adds that link's insights (views over time, referrers, reactions). It does not spell out the upload_id versus generation_id discrimination, but the schema's anyOf enforces that unambiguously.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — listing live share links scoped to exactly one generation or upload — and immediately enumerates what each entry carries (ids, ages, view counts, owner settings). That scope sentence distinguishes it from sibling mutators like create_share_link and revoke_share_link without the agent needing to open 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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: call it on a single generation or upload, and add share_id when per-link insights are wanted. It also states an explicit exclusion — group links are not listable here — but does not name the tool or path to use for that case, so the alternative is implied rather than specified.

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