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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. However it leaves 'the next call' unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether that is a recommended tool name, a free-text suggestion, or a workflow stage label.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact enumeration of the returned fields. Nothing is redundant and no polishing is required.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key gap by sketching the return shape. It is nonetheless thin on the one non-obvious element it raises, 'the next call,' which an agent would need to understand in order to use the result 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%, and the schema itself states that link_id comes from start_project_link. The description adds no meaning beyond that. With a single fully documented parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one link') and enumerates what the view contains: service, folders given, sent status, and the next call. That is far more specific than a tautology. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings such as get_share_steps or get_activation_steps, so it is clear but not differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied: you hold a link and want its current state. The phrase 'the next call' hints at a workflow role, but the agent must infer that this is the status-check step between start_project_link and send_project_link.

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