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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: public links are reusable signing links producing a separate document per signer, results should be presented as names/status with IDs hidden, the capability is required, and pagination must continue via nextOffset until null, including on short pages. No contradiction with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, conceptual definition, output presentation, capability requirement, and pagination caveat. The most important disambiguation is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the pagination warning is clearly delimited.

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 operation with only two well-documented parameters, the description covers scope, output format, capability prerequisite, and pagination semantics. Since there is no output schema, the description still conveys the essential return shape (link names and status) and the nextOffset mechanism, giving an agent everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents limit and offset fully, including defaults and the meaning of nextOffset. The description reinforces the pagination contract but does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('List the public links you own plus the ones shared with the account'), and clearly distinguishes public links from per-recipient links by naming get_recipient_links as the source of the latter. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous even among many sibling list tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (public links, owned/shared) and when not to (per-recipient links of already-sent documents), naming get_recipient_links as the alternative. It also states the prerequisite publicLinks capability, so an agent can verify availability before calling.

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