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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of what is returned (links, open targets, remaining quota), including the `targets` concept, which clarifies behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and return contents front-loaded, followed by the routing instruction. Slightly heavy with inline code and colons, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool, the purpose, return gist, and pre-write usage guidance together are sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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?

The single `business` parameter is documented in the schema as the page handle at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter detail. The phrase "this page" implicitly ties the input to a page, but the schema already carries that meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the page's custom links) and enumerates the payload: the links, what each opens, remaining quota, and the `targets` blocks. It draws a clear line against set_custom_links, so the agent can distinguish read from write without opening either schema.

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?

"Read this before set_custom_links" states the sequencing condition and names the alternative explicitly, which is more than most list tools offer. It stops short of stating when not to use it, but the routing purpose is unambiguous.

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