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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are limited to active links and scoped to the calling user, and the per-entry attributes (including the kind enumeration) are disclosed even though no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentence: the resource and its scope come first, then the returned fields as a compact list. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the shape of returned entries, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is not fully complete on pagination/ordering or whether links across all clouds are included, but those are minor for a simple listing tool.

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?

There are zero input parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify; a baseline of 4 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 concrete resource (the user's active public share links) and enumerates what each entry carries (kind file/inbox/archive, URL, whether a password is set, expiry). This clearly distinguishes it from the create/revoke siblings, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the name rather than stated in the sentence.

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?

Usage is implied: the word 'active' signals only currently-valid links are returned, and the possessive framing signals the caller's own links. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as create_share_link or revoke_share_link, and no stated preconditions or scope exclusions.

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