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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: pagination mechanics ('Follow next_before_id while has_more'), the need to refresh the newest page, the fact that metadata excludes a bearer secret, and the required tickets:read scope. That is substantial behavioral detail 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?

Four dense sentences lead with the core purpose, then ordering, pagination, and auth. No filler, though the 'Scope ... is live on each page' sentence is slightly awkward to parse.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers ordering, cursor pagination, refresh behavior, and the auth requirement, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gap on the limit parameter and no return shape, but annotations plus this text make it callable.

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 load. It explains the scope enum values and the cursor usage ('next_before_id') and implies snapshot_id via 'for one owned report', but leaves limit's meaning/bounds unstated. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('List owned report links'), plus the ordering (newest creation-time/ID), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_portfolio_report_share and the write-side create/revoke siblings. The optional single-report refinement further narrows the scope an agent should expect.

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?

'optionally for one owned report' implies the scenario for filtering by a single report, and the scope sentence implies filtering by lifecycle state. However, no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio_report_share for one link) or when-not guidance is given, leaving usage largely inferred.

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