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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the response does not include raw token material, a meaningful behavioral guarantee not present in annotations. Minor gap: does not state what it does return.

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 with no extra words. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, identifier type, and a key behavioral constraint.

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 read operation with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The note about raw token material is important security context. An explicit mention of the return payload would make it fully complete, but it's not essential given no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that source_link_id is a public id and the resource is a source/referral attribution link. It does not mention the optional request_id, but the primary required parameter is well explained.

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 a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('source/referral attribution link'), and the scope ('by public id'). The word 'one' distinguishes it from list operations without requiring schema inspection.

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: use this when you need a single link by its public id. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like list, create, or disable, and offers no exclusionary guidance.

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