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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'active only by default' scoping behavior, but omits pagination (cursor) behavior and return characteristics, leaving it at a solid-but-basic level.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the coverage gaps, so not a perfect 5 on structure/value density.

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 listing tool with 6 parameters (including a nested free-form query object and cursor pagination) and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain pagination, filtering options, and what the listing returns, none of which appear.

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 carries more burden, yet it only touches on active_only ('active only by default') and says nothing about limit, cursor, brand_id, or the open-ended query object. It adds marginal meaning over the schema for a tool whose parameters are largely undocumented.

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 ('List') and resource ('short links') with the qualifier 'first-party' and 'workspace's', which helps separate it from sibling list tools such as list_connect_links, list_report_links, and list_client_review_links. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stays short of a 5.

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 vs. alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'active only by default' is a behavioral note about the default filter rather than usage routing, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and the many other 'list_*' siblings.

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