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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it enumerates exactly what each link record contains (alias, URL pattern, mode, campaign/adset/ad, click counts, product details) and lists pagination envelope fields. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then the return shape; every clause carries information. It is a single dense paragraph, which is efficient though slightly heavy to scan.

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, and the description compensates well by describing both per-link fields and the pagination envelope. For a read-only list tool with four fully documented params, an agent has enough to call it and interpret results 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 schema already documents limit, offset, status and campaign_id fully. The description reinforces that status and campaign are filters and mentions pagination, but adds no semantics (ranges, defaults, enum meaning) beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (Lista) and resource (links rastreados da conta) plus the distinctive added value, the detected product per link. An agent can distinguish it from pixel_get_products_sold or pixel_get_campaigns because the description explicitly says it returns tracked links enriched with the Shopee product.

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?

It mentions that filters exist by status and campaign, giving implied usage, but never says when to choose this tool over pixel_get_products_sold or pixel_get_campaigns, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the returned-fields list.

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