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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds crucial behavior: linkUrl is null while processing, and it explains the status values (active, disabled, processing) in context. Slight gap: no mention of possible errors or rate limits, but the added context is valuable.

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?

The description is efficient, front-loading the purpose, listing key fields in the first sentence, then adding contextual details. Every sentence earns its place; the guidance about update_link is placed at the end, which is fine as it's a usage note.

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 read operation with one parameter, the description provides comprehensive information: the return fields, the status vocabulary, the null behavior of linkUrl, and the relationship to update_link. No output schema exists, so this description fully compensates, making the tool easy to call 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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (linkId) with a clear description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't need to add more; 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 a public link's full configuration, enumerating specific fields (name, language, status, signature slots, linkUrl). This precisely defines the resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_document or get_template.

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?

It explicitly instructs to ALWAYS call this tool before update_link, providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also contrasts the link's status vocabulary with documents, preventing misuse.

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