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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the presence of per-link state (views, expiry, revoked), which is mild but real added context; it says nothing about pagination or volume of links returned.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned attributes enumerated after the colon. No wasted wording, though the fragment style is terse enough that the leading noun phrase takes a moment to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to define return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and ordering for a single-parameter read tool. The only substantive gap is the unresolved meaning/format of the 'artifact' identifier.

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% for the single required 'artifact' parameter, so the description carries the burden, yet it only says 'an artifact' without clarifying whether the value is an ID, slug, or name, or whether unshared artifacts return an empty list. This is the weakest dimension.

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 names the resource (the public share links belonging to an artifact) and its scope/ordering (newest first), so an agent can tell it is a read of existing share links rather than a create/revoke action. The verb is implicit ('the links ... has been shared by') rather than an explicit 'list', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to audit links that already exist, but the description never says when to prefer it over siblings like share_artifact, unshare_artifact, get_artifact, or list_artifacts. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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