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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the status vocabulary and that watched-amount data is included, beyond what annotations convey. It stops short of addressing pagination or result ordering.

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 dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical status list is the only bulk, and it earns its place by clarifying return values.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned but omits pagination, default behavior when neither filter is set, and result ordering. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0% for both params, so the description must compensate. It does partially: enumerating status values maps to the status param and 'one video's' maps to videoId. However it never states these are optional filters or how they combine, so the mapping is inferential rather than explicit.

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 specific resource (recipient links) and both scope modes (every link or one video's), plus what the record contains. An agent can distinguish it from create_link/complete_upload, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_viewers.

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 'every link, or one video's' phrasing implies how to scope the call, which maps onto the two optional params. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that filters are optional, and no alternative-tool routing.

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