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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ("best first") and account-level scoping, but says nothing about result fields, truncation beyond limit, or why the tool is marked non-idempotent despite being a read.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the resource and sort order lead, and the use case follows. Nothing is wasted.

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?

All three parameters are optional and fully documented, so calling it is unambiguous, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a ranked row contains (link identifier? click count? campaign?). That leaves a real gap for interpreting results.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter's format, range, and defaults documented inline. The description only restates the shared date-range concept and adds no per-parameter meaning, so baseline 3 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?

States a concrete resource and operation: the account's links ranked by clicks over a date range, returned best-first. The ranking and sort order clearly separate it from a plain enumeration like list_links, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 answer which links or campaigns performed best" implies the use case but offers no when-not guidance and no routing against get_link_stats, get_link_timeseries, or list_links, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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