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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: sorting is newest-first, each item has 30-day stats fields, pagination is capped at 200 with offset, and total is returned.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the resource and return shape, then filters, an example, and pagination. Despite its density, every clause adds needed information for a tool whose schema has no parameter descriptions.

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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description supplies the return fields, filter semantics, an example query pattern, and pagination limits. Together with the safety annotations, this is complete enough to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains q search scope, lists the allowed platform values, clarifies set_id as links for one video or campaign, describes archived=true, and covers limit/offset pagination behavior.

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 specifies the resource (school short links), the operation (list, newest first), and the item contents including stats_30d fields. It is clearly a list tool, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling get_link_stats, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives a concrete usage example ('which link under YouTube videos brought more money') and explains filter semantics such as q, platform, set_id, and archived. It provides clear context for when to use these filters but does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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