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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: default 50 / max 100 page size, cursor-based pagination with a plain-language end-of-results signal, and the fact that deleted links are excluded. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or scope limits, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then pagination contract, in that order. Every sentence delivers a distinct fact (ordering, use cases, page size, cursor handoff, deletion filter) with no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (URL plus details per link, cursor appended when more pages exist, explicit end-of-list signal). Combined with the pagination and limit details, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range, the default of 50, and the instruction to pass the cursor back verbatim. The description only restates the page-size numbers, adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 links on this account') plus ordering semantics ('newest first') and the payload shape ('URL and details of each'). The sibling set (complete_upload, create_upload_url, share_text) is entirely write-oriented, so the read-only purpose is distinguishable without inspecting any 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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use conditions: find a link shared earlier, check if something is still up, and inspect what an account holds before adding to it. The last one implicitly routes to the write siblings, but no alternative tool or exclusion is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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