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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the payload: the address itself, how many conversations each link generated, and how many closed (contact reached a win stage). No output schema exists, so this return-value disclosure is genuinely additive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a compact definition plus the returned metrics. No padding. Minor cost: the description is in Portuguese while the tool name, title and annotations are English, a small consistency friction for an English-tooled agent.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, read-only annotations and no output schema, the main gap would be return values – and the description fills exactly that by naming the address, conversation count and closed-deal count. The admin-only nuance for target_user_id is left entirely to the schema, but nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 100% – both target_user_id (platform-admin-only) and agent_profile_id (optional agent filter) are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the optional agent scoping via "(ou de um agente)" but adds no format or behavior detail beyond that, so the 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?

Specific verb ("Lista") plus resource ("links de entrada da conta (ou de um agente)"), and it defines what an agent link actually is (a wa.me URL with pre-filled text that routes straight to the agent, no menu). An agent can separate it from create_agent_link/delete_agent_link by verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: the parenthetical "(ou de um agente)" hints that the tool can be narrowed to one agent, and the mention of conversation/closed counts suggests a reporting use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no guidance on how this differs from create_agent_link or list_agent_profiles.

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