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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds real behavioral detail: it returns only links that still work and discloses the returned fields (url, expiry with null meaning never, open count). It omits pagination and any permission/auth notes, keeping it short of 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?

Two tight sentences with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The colon-and-list formatting is dense but readable, and every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by describing url, expiry, and open count. Scope and the single parameter are both addressed; only edge details like pagination or empty-result behavior are absent.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains tracker_id and its 'leave out for all trackers' default. The description restates that same filter rule without adding format or source detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

It names the resource (share links) and constrains it to those that 'still work', plus the scope (one tracker or all). The verb is only implicit from the tool name rather than stated, but the description is unambiguous and no sibling overlaps with it.

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 'for one tracker, or for all trackers' clause implies when to pass the filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. With no competing sibling tools the omission is minor, leaving usage only implied.

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