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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns link metadata but explicitly "Never the link itself" — a non-obvious constraint that prevents an agent from expecting a URL. It does not mention pagination or result limits.

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?

Three short lines: capability first, then when-to-use, then a runnable example. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the fields returned and flagging the one thing not returned. Remaining gaps are pagination behavior and disambiguation from the other list_* link/report tools.

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 100% and both parameters already name their upstream sources, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a 4 by supplying a concrete worked example ({"eventKey": "ev_1350a828b5ff", "channelId": "Travel Agency A"}) that shows the actual value shape for both required params.

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 concrete verb+resource ("List a channel's partner report links") and even enumerates the returned fields (label, expiry, show-money flag, views, state). The one gap is sibling differentiation: it never says how it differs from list_access_links or get_channel_report, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Provides an explicit "Use when" trigger (before planning a revoke) plus a natural-language user question it answers ("who can still see the agency report?"), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it.

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