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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation is a read (list), the returned fields (token, url, expiresAt, viewCount, createdAt), and the auth requirement. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or error behavior, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 a single, compact sentence that leads with the action and includes the key returned fields and auth requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool, the description covers the basic operation, returned fields, and auth. It is incomplete on parameter semantics and alternative-tool routing, but the absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by enumerating the return fields.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'id' parameter. 'For a fiche' implies id identifies the fiche, but this is indirect. The description adds little beyond what the raw schema shows, leaving the parameter meaning under-specified.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('guest links for a fiche'), and lists the returned fields. It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like list_fiches or share_fiche.

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 requirement for Bearer authentication gives a usage condition, and 'for a fiche' implies the tool is used to fetch shares per fiche. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as share_fiche or revoke_share, leaving the selection to inference.

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