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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: short_url works immediately while branded_url only works once the site is published, and redirect status is 301 unless changed. It stops short of describing pagination or result limits.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then maps out the returned fields in a scannable order. It is longer than typical but each clause corresponds to a distinct field an agent needs to interpret results.

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 full burden of explaining return values — and it does so field by field, including the subtle published/branded_url interaction. Combined with the fully-described input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 search, site_id and user_goal are already documented in the schema. The description adds no param-level guidance (e.g., what fields search matches is schema-supplied), so baseline 3 applies.

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 the site's tracked links") and immediately enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from create_link, update_link, remove_links and get_link_stats. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the framing (listing a site's links, with a text filter available via the schema), but the description never states when to prefer this over get_link_stats, list_tracking_tags or validate_links. No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the schema's reference to list_sites for site_id.

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