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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered; the trailing 'Read-only.' largely restates it. Beyond that it adds only the workspace scope and mode filter, saying nothing about pagination (cursor/limit behavior) or how links are ordered.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The 'Read-only.' fragment is slightly redundant against the annotations but costs almost nothing.

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 tool with six parameters, a nested free-form 'query' object, low schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It leaves the agent without guidance on pagination, the query override, brand scoping, or what a returned link looks like.

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 bears a compensation burden it does not meet. It mentions only the mode filter — and even that just echoes the enum values 'snapshot'/'live' already in the schema — while limit, cursor, query, and brand_id go unexplained in both places.

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 report share links'), which clearly distinguishes it from aidelly_list_reports and aidelly_list_report_schedules. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the resource noun alone.

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 usage (retrieve share links, optionally narrowed by mode) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no reverse guidance (e.g., use create_report_link to make one, revoke_report_link to remove one), and no prerequisites. Use is merely implied by the verb.

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