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

The annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the auth requirement, the result ordering, and the cursor-must-match-search constraint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by prerequisites and pagination. Every sentence carries actionable information and none repeats another.

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 does the work of naming the returned content (destinations, click counts) and the pagination field next_cursor, plus the auth prerequisite. A slightly fuller picture of the response shape would be needed for a 5, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default limit of 20 and the search fields matched. The description largely restates those semantics rather than adding new ones, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource ('the user's Snip.link links'), an ordering ('newest first'), and the fields returned (destinations, click counts), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_collections or get_link_stats, which keeps it just below 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('needs the user signed in to Snip.link') and explains how to search and how to paginate ('pass the answer's next_cursor as cursor with the same search'). It stops short of stating when to choose this over sibling lookups like get_link_stats or list_collections.

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