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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the links are 'exactly as published on privaku.com' — telling the agent these are canonical, unmodified values rather than synthesized results — and by listing the platforms covered.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the authoritative-source claim and the platform scope are front-loaded before the optional filter note. Nothing is repeated or padding.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the response shape — whether links come back grouped per platform or as a flat list, and what happens with an unrecognized slug — which an agent must guess without an output schema.

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% and the schema already provides slug examples (photos, talk, shield, eye, brain-sdk). The description confirms 'product slug' filtering but adds no syntax, matching, or fallback behavior beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific resource (download links) and enumerates the platform coverage (App Store, Android beta, web, Mac/SDK), which tells an agent exactly what dataset comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fetch or search_site, but the resource itself is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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 implies when to call it (when you need official download links) and states the filter is optional, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as fetch or search_site for retrieving the same information. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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