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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it lists exactly what metadata is readable and explicitly promises that bearer links are not revealed. This is a valuable behavioral guarantee that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the exact metadata exposed and the key exclusion ('without revealing bearer links'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 a read-only annotation set, a clear output schema, and a description that states both what is returned and what is intentionally omitted, the agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly. The absence of explicit parameter explanation is minor given the self-evident IDs and the output schema carrying return-value details.

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?

The input schema provides two required integer IDs ('project_id' and 'room_id') but no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain how these scope the operation. However, the parameter names and titles are self-explanatory, so an agent can infer they identify the project and room whose share links are being listed; a brief scoping phrase would have made this stronger.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('existing link labels, permissions, expiry, usage, password-protection status and revocation metadata'), and explicitly scopes the behavior ('without revealing bearer links'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sparkroom.create_share_link and sparkroom.revoke_share_link.

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 makes it clear this is the inspection/read tool for SparkRoom sharing controls, which gives an agent a solid sense of when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing to this tool over create/revoke siblings.

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