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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explicitly excluding expired links and including click counts, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape, so it provides only moderate added transparency.

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 entire description is one direct sentence that states the action, resource, filtering criterion, and included data. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies what is listed, which items are included, and what data is returned. No output schema exists, but the description implies the relevant output without requiring further guidance.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not repeat schema details and carries no parameter burden; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('links of the account'), and adds meaningful scope: only active/non-expired links and includes click counts. This distinguishes it from get_link (single link) and get_analytics (analytics-specific) without ambiguity.

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 description conveys that this tool is for listing active, non-expired links with click counts, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, but the sibling tool names make the distinction inferable.

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