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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication requirement (Business plan API key) and the data scope (links with click counts). It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'list,' and describes filtering/sorting capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, nor mention rate limits or response pagination behavior, which are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and scope, and the second sentence efficiently covers filtering, sorting, and the authentication requirement. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 list operation with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core behavior: it returns links of the specified types with their click counts, and supports filtering and sorting. It does not explicitly describe the response shape, but the mention of click counts and link types gives a sufficient hint. Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is reasonably complete; the only minor gap is not mentioning pagination behavior, though offset/limit are in the schema.

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. The description adds some context by mapping 'filter by type or search term' to 'type' and 'q', and 'sort by newest or most clicked' to 'sort', but these details are already fully described in the schema enums. It does not add significantly new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'lists the links on the account the API key belongs to,' specifying three distinct link types (short links, link-in-bio pages, restaurant menus) and that click counts are included. This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_link (single link) or get_link_analytics (analytics).

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing all account links) and includes a prerequisite (requires a ShareCut API key on a Business plan). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a 5.

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