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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description fully supports. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the need for business permissions, the restriction for FREE businesses, and the requirement to handle grace-period warnings and resubscribe links.

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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the permission guidelines more tightly. Still, it earns its space without redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to document parameter semantics, expected input formats, or return values. While it covers prerequisites well, the lack of param guidance leaves significant gaps for effective agent usage.

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% with 6 parameters (3 required). The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names. This is a critical gap, as the description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'List tracked links for one Magic Reach message and platform', specifying the verb ('List'), resource ('tracked links'), and the context ('one Magic Reach message and platform'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_magic_reach_messages (lists messages) and list_magic_reach_recipients (lists recipients).

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: check business permissions, FREE businesses cannot use, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This clearly tells when to use and when not to use, with alternative actions specified.

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