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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by requiring host privileges and previewing return contents (public URL, vanity short link, custom links with source and click counts). The read-only hint is already in annotations, so the extra host and content detail earns an above-baseline score.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. Every phrase adds useful constraints or content details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys the purpose, preconditions, and returned data shape. No additional information seems necessary for correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It confirms event_id is required and implies it refers to a live event, but it does not explain how to obtain or validate the ID, so it adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema's required flag.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the shareable links for a live event') and enumerates exactly what is included: public URL, vanity short link, and every trackable custom link with source and click count. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_event_url or create_custom_link.

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 clear preconditions: requires event_id and host privileges, and explicitly marks the operation as read-only. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool.

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