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 a genuine constraint not in the annotations: results exclude expired links, and each item carries click counts and tags. However, nothing is said about result volume, pagination, or ordering, which matters for a list operation.

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 zero filler; the scope restriction (active, not expired) is front-loaded and the optional filter follows. Every sentence carries information.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description says enough: what is listed, what is excluded, and what fields come back. The only gap is enumeration limits or ordering, which an agent might reasonably want to know before calling.

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%, and the schema already explains the OR semantics ("at least one of these tags") and constraints. The description's "any of the given tags" restates the schema rather than adding meaning, so the 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (links) with explicit scope: active, non-expired links of the account. It also states what is returned (click counts, tags), which separates it from get_link (single link) and get_analytics in practice, though it never names those siblings 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?

The second sentence explains the optional tag filter, but that is parameter behavior, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement about when to prefer this over get_link for a single item or get_analytics for metrics, so usage must be inferred from the verb.

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