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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but since no output schema exists the description adds real value by enumerating the return shape, including pagination signals (nextCursor, hasMore, canPaginate) and the bundled availableCustomDomains. It stops short of describing ordering or empty-result 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the optional flag, then the return contract. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Read-only.' fragment is largely duplicative of the annotation.

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 steps in to document the response envelope and pagination fields, and it explains the cross-tool role of availableCustomDomains. An agent has everything needed to page through results and chain into formShareLink_update.

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 coverage is 50% (formId and includeRevoked are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining includeRevoked's meaning and effect. limit/cursor are covered by the schema itself, and formId is self-evident from the required shape.

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 ('List share links for a form') with an explicit scope qualifier (per-form), which separates it from formShareLink_create/update in the sibling set. It even names the related sibling, formShareLink_update, and explains how the returned data feeds it.

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?

It tells the agent how to include revoked links (includeRevoked=true) and implies this is the read path for share links, but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no explicit alternative routing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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