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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add value by enumerating returned fields (view count, last viewed time, revoked status) in the absence of an output schema, but pagination and result-size behavior are unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded before the returned-field detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 low-complexity list tool the description is close to sufficient: safety is covered by annotations and the key return fields are named in lieu of an output schema. The remaining gaps are the undocumented brand_id and the absence of any filtering/pagination guidance.

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 67%: workspace_id is well documented in the schema, while brand_id has no description and the nested 'query' object is loosely framed as overrides for sparse schemas. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'the workspace's', so it neither compensates for nor improves on 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the workspace's client review links') and names the returned fields, so the agent knows this is the read counterpart of create/revoke_client_review_link. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The sibling set contains several similar listing tools (list_connect_links, list_report_links) that the description does not help the agent choose between.

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