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

Annotations already fully declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is a mild repetition. It does add genuinely new context, though: the returned fields (ID, title, status) and the non-obvious fact that the response also carries the account's page limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by return contents and the safety signal. Nothing is wasted and no sentence restates the tool name.

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 full output schema, complete annotations and documented parameters, the description needs only to establish intent and routing, which it does. Only a pointer to get_link_page for single-page retrieval 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% for both parameters ('q' search words, 'per_page' 5-100), so structured data carries the load. The description adds no syntax or behavior detail about searching or pagination, which matches the baseline 3.

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 ('see or find') and resource ('landing pages') and adds the concrete use case of needing a page ID. This clearly separates it from the single-resource get_link_page and from the unrelated short-link listings, even without naming them.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user wants to see or find their landing pages, or you need a page ID.' It does not name alternatives such as get_link_page (single fetch) or list_short_links, so the when-not guidance 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.