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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond them: 'Never returns bearer tokens.' That tells the agent it cannot recover a usable link credential from this call, which is meaningful behavioral context, not a restatement.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the security caveat follows directly. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (metadata + view counts) and what it withholds (tokens). The only gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset.

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 0% and the description never mentions document_id, limit, or offset. The parameters are self-evident by name (pagination + target document), but the description does not explain the default of 10, the max of 20, or that offset enables paging, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific resource ('sharing-link metadata and view counts') scoped to 'one document'. This distinguishes it from create/revoke siblings by operation type, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to disambiguate against list_documents or list_comments.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to inspect existing sharing links for a given document. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the related create_link/revoke_link siblings, so the agent must infer context.

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