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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description meaningfully adds that both active AND revoked links are returned and that results are scoped to stories owned by the connected account, which is real behavioral context beyond 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?

A single tight sentence with the scope qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it could have used the space for one more differentiating or parameter detail.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally describe the shape of returned links (fields, pagination, counts). It states what is listed but not what an agent receives, and it leaves the required storyId unexplained, so it is only minimally 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% and the single parameter storyId has no schema description. The phrase 'for a story' gestures at the parameter but gives no format, constraints, or identifier source, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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) and resource (share links) plus scope (active and revoked, for a story owned by the connected account). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_story, create_story_share_link, and revoke_story_share_link, though it doesn't call out those siblings by name.

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 by the resource it lists, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_story or the create/revoke siblings. An agent can infer the right context but is not routed there.

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