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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the URLs are 'writer-approved' and 'public,' clarifying the selection criteria and access level. This goes beyond the annotation hints, though it does not describe return format or pagination.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and object. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and return type (URLs). Combined with the annotations, the safety profile is clear. However, it could mention that writerSlug must correspond to a valid writer and that the resulting URLs are shareable, but these are minor gaps in an otherwise sufficient description.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for the two required parameters (writerSlug, projectSlug), and the description does not explain their meaning or format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate by defining them, which it fails to do.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'writer-approved public share URLs' for a 'specific project.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_writer_assets (which likely lists all assets for a writer) and get_public_pitch_assets (which focuses on pitch assets).

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 description implies when to use the tool—when you need public share URLs approved by the writer for a project—but it does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives. Sibling tools exist, but no guidance is given on how to choose between them, so the usage context is clear but lacks differentiation.

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