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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the GET endpoint and the mode filter, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, open-world result boundaries, or workspace/brand scoping details, leaving part of the behavioral context to the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The endpoint is first, the action is clear, and the optional filter is mentioned efficiently.

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 list tool, the description gives the core purpose but omits helpful context like pagination semantics, the meaning of brand_id and query, and what a report share link response looks like. Given the absence of an output schema and the low parameter coverage, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It mentions the mode parameter, but the schema already provides the enum values; it adds no clarity for cursor, brand_id, query, or limit. With five parameters lacking meaningful descriptions in the schema, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool lists workspace report share links, uses the verb 'list', and identifies the resource. It also notes the optional mode filter (snapshot or live), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_reports.

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 implies a use case—list report share links—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_reports or revoke_report_link. There are no exclusions or context about comparison to related report-link tools.

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