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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered newest first and the click figures are constrained to a 30-day window, which prevents misreading the metric as lifetime totals.

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 zero filler, and the highest-value facts (scope, ordering, metric window) are front-loaded before the search semantics.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, sort order, metric window and search behavior. It could still note that limit is the only pagination control (no cursor/offset), but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 67%, with 'search' carrying no schema description at all; the description fills that gap precisely by stating it matches slug, title or destination. site_id and limit are already documented in the schema, so the description adds value exactly where it was missing.

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 ('the site's tracked short links') and adds distinguishing scope: newest-first ordering and clicks scoped to the last 30 days. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_link_clicks or list_link_domains, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is the enumeration tool versus get_link_clicks (per-link click data) or list_link_domains, and nothing states prerequisites or what to do when the result is empty or exceeds limit.

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