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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the newest-first ordering and the fact that only 'tracked' links appear, which is modest extra context but stops short of covering pagination, limits, or auth behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the returned fields, then the ordering. No filler, no redundancy.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, complete annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note pagination or empty-result behavior, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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% and both parameters (slug, apiKey) are documented in the schema, including the default-to-own-card behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('List'), resource ('shareable links'), scope ('the card's tracked'), and even what the result contains (URLs, view counts, newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'create_shareable_link' (a mutation) and 'get_upgrade_link' (a different link type).

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 you call this to inspect a card's links, but the description never states when to prefer it over 'get_analytics' or how it relates to 'create_shareable_link'. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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