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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the response excludes raw token material and source quality ranking, which helps the agent set expectations about the returned data.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds a scoping qualifier without any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no parameter meanings, pagination behavior, or response format. Even for a read-only list, agents need more context to invoke it correctly with appropriate filters.

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% and the description makes no mention of any of the five parameters (limit, request_id, job_posting_id, starting_after, include_disabled). With zero parameter documentation in both schema and description, the agent has no information about how to filter, paginate, or scope the list.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('source/referral attribution links'), and the phrase 'without raw token material or source quality ranking' further defines the scope by noting what the response does not include. This clearly separates it from sibling create/read/disable tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yardstick_source_links_read or yardstick_source_links_create. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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