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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context: requires host authorization, and enumerates the types of links returned (with source and click count). This provides meaningful behavioral insight 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loading the main action, then prerequisites, then a one-word note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the return value types and prerequisites, but with no output schema, it could be more complete by indicating whether the result is an array or object, or mentioning error conditions. It is minimally adequate for a simple, single-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only restates that event_id is required, without explaining its format, purpose, or how to obtain it. No additional semantic value is added over the 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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'shareable links for a live event', listing exact link types (public URL, immersive-page URL, vanity short link, trackable custom links with source and click count). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects of events.

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 states requirements: event_id and host role, and declares the operation as read-only. It implies when to use (to retrieve share links) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidelines or mention alternative tools for similar data.

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