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. The description adds real context beyond that: only *active* links are returned and each entry indicates view vs edit permission, which shapes how an agent should interpret the results. It omits pagination/volume behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the scope constraint ('active') and the returned information front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only mild gap is that it doesn't hint at the shape of each share entry (link, permission, recipient), which an agent calling without an output schema might want.

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% with a single required lectureId, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description restates that it scopes to 'one of the user's lectures' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('active share links of one of the user's lectures') and even clarifies the payload ('who can view or edit'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_lecture or list_lectures, though it doesn't reference a sibling by name.

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?

The phrase 'of one of the user's lectures' implies the context (a lecture you own) and 'active' implies filtering, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or mention of alternatives such as get_lecture for the lecture itself.

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