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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description still adds real behavioral value: the exact return shape, the four type values, and the special case where web_url links additionally return taggedUrl with UTM values and utm_id=gb_<slug>. It does not address ordering or pagination, which are the only obvious behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core action and scope, then moves to return fields, then to workflow routing. Four sentences, all of them informative, though the dense run-on enumeration of return fields is slightly harder to scan than a compact list.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return values, and it does so field by field, including the conditional web_url extras. It also supplies the skill prerequisite and the follow-up tool, which is enough for an agent to call this correctly without further context.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the type values actually mean, especially that web_url points at a site running the Gamebeast JavaScript SDK. It does not add anything about the search or projectId/environment parameters beyond the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 deeplinks created for the current project') with an explicit scope bound to the project. It then enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what kind of data comes back, and it implicitly separates itself from query_deeplink_metrics, which is named later.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('Use list_deeplinks first, then query_deeplink_metrics with the deeplink id for analytics') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it. It also adds a prerequisite ('Load the understand-deeplinks skill ... first'), so there is no ambiguity about when and how to start.

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