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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: result ordering (newest first), the auth requirement, and what each row contains (destination and click count).

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 ordering come first, followed by prerequisite and the search hint. Every clause carries information.

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 only two simple optional params, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: auth requirement, ordering, and the shape of returned data. Missing only explicit pagination/limit behavior and sibling routing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that search matches "an ending, a destination or a title" largely restates the schema text, and the limit parameter is not addressed at all.

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 (the user's Snip links), plus scope (the user's own links, newest first) and payload (destinations and click counts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_domains or get_link_stats without needing the 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?

"Needs the user signed in to Snip" gives an explicit prerequisite, and the search guidance tells the agent when the search parameter is appropriate. There is no explicit routing to alternatives (e.g., get_link_stats for a single link), so it falls short of a 5.

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