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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it resolves verified source corrections, optionally checks availability, and does not generate files. This clarifies expected behavior and side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action: 'Get existing download links.' The subsequent clauses add necessary distinctions without redundancy. No filler or repeated structured information.

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 read-only tool with robust annotations, the description is largely adequate, but key context is missing: there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'resolves verified source corrections' means for the returned data or what 'checking availability' entails. These ambiguities make it less than fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains checkAvailability indirectly via 'optionally checking availability,' but publicationId is only inferable from the tool title and context, and no additional semantic detail about parameter values or output is provided. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get existing download links.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Does not generate files'), which distinguishes it from potential generation-like tools. The resource is clear and the behavior is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_publication_text.

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 implied: use this tool when you need existing download links for a publication. The description provides one exclusion ('Does not generate files') but does not name alternative sibling tools or offer explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other publication-related tools.

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