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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces it with "Changes nothing" and adds a genuinely new behavioral detail the annotations don't carry — the result is truncated to the first 20 links. It doesn't describe pagination beyond that cap or how matches are returned, so not a 5.

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 purpose, then the mode-selection rule, then the no-side-effects guarantee. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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 6-parameter read-only preview tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential decision logic: which mode, what gets matched, and the 20-link cap. It leaves the shape of the preview response (list of links vs. list of matching pages) implicit, which is the main remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot express: collection_id and slug_pattern/page_types are mutually alternative modes, not cumulative filters. It also anchors slug_pattern with a concrete wildcard example. It omits variation_id and user_goal entirely, which is a minor gap given the schema documents them.

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 ("See what a collection shows") and immediately distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings create_dynamic_collection / update_dynamic_collection by scoping itself to pre-change inspection. The two preview modes are named concretely, so an agent knows what the tool does 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?

Explicitly frames the use case ("before creating or changing it") and gives a clear rule for choosing between the two modes: collection_id for an existing collection's links, or slug_pattern/page_types to test which pages would match. It stops short of naming the create/update siblings or stating when not to use it, which keeps it out of the top band.

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