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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: an authorization constraint ('Only the user who created the link can read it') and an ordering guarantee ('in the order they arrived'). Return shape and pagination limits are not mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences: purpose and returned fields first, then the downstream hand-off, then the auth caveat. Nothing is redundant, and the docs link is the only marginal addition.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotation coverage already in place, the description supplies what is missing: the returned fields, ordering, authorization scope, and the natural next tool. An agent can call it and use the result without further inference.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the token comes from createUploadSession. The description only restates the same provenance, adding no extra meaning such as token expiry or reuse semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List the pictures uploaded through an upload link') and anchors it to the sibling that creates the link (createUploadSession). It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the schema.

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 routes the result downstream: 'Pass the uploadIds to setProductImages or createRikmaProduct', which tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use case or a named alternative lister, so it is strong rather than complete.

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