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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds context beyond that: it returns plain text URLs, includes conditional availability (public page only when published, agency URL if set), and specifies the brochure PDF is A4. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists all link types and the output format. No redundant words or filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with a clear output description, the definition is nearly complete. It covers all link types, conditional behavior, and the output format. Minor gaps like the order of links or null handling are not essential for correct invocation.

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 propertyId parameter is well documented ('Exact id previously returned by a read tool — never invent one'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves all links for a listing and enumerates the exact types (admin page, brochure PDF, public page, agency URL, 3D tour). It specifies the output format (plain text URLs) and use case (WhatsApp), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_property which would return property details.

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 usage when the agent needs shareable URLs for a listing, and notes the public page is only available when published. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and self-contained, so an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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