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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: only still-active links are returned, and the link URL is never retrievable after creation. No pagination or ordering behavior is mentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by the critical "link is never shown again" caveat and the routing hint. The enumerated return-field list is justified because there is no output schema, though the sentence is dense.

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, describing the returned fields is the right call and it does so. Given a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is close to complete; the missing piece is pagination/result-size behavior and any explicit workspaceId semantics.

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?

One parameter (workspaceId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. "of this workspace" implies the parameter scopes results to a workspace, but it never explains the format, whether it defaults when omitted, or how a missing value is resolved.

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 (client connect links active in this workspace), enumerates the fields it surfaces (who it's for, created, expires, last used, accounts connected), and explicitly ties itself to get_connect_url with for_client so it is clearly distinct from that sibling. An agent can select it without opening 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?

"Use it to find the id to revoke with revoke_connect_link" gives a concrete downstream purpose and names the sibling it feeds. It does not state when *not* to use it or contrast it against get_connect_url as an alternative path, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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