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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open behavior. The description adds useful return-content context (clicks, orders, delivered counts, public URL), but it does not describe pagination behavior, scoping/auth requirements, or rate limits; with annotations covering safety, this is moderate added value.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant restatement. The second sentence adds useful return-content context without waste.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool; annotations cover safety and the schema covers pagination and filtering parameters. Without an output schema, the description names the key returned fields and the public URL, though it could mention pagination defaults or result ordering explicitly.

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 100%, with page, limit, and offer_id all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and clearly identifies the resource as the partner's tracking links (streams), including the metrics returned. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_offer, get_order, and search_offers because it is the listing endpoint for tracking links.

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 by the listing purpose and the note that each link has a public URL to share in ads, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not guidance, or named alternative tool. A 3 reflects implied rather than explicit usage routing.

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