List campaign links

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by explaining what the returned fields mean (tracking_url is the ad-facing campaign link, null if unavailable; url is the store destination), but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a limit/cursor pair existing.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then immediately clarifying the two easily confused return fields. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value explanation and does so for the two most confusable fields. The remaining gap is pagination: an agent must discover limit/cursor behavior on its own.

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 only 33% – app_id is documented but limit and cursor are not. The description only echoes the app-scoping idea already present in the schema and gives no guidance on page size or cursor usage, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('List tracking links') plus an optional scope ('optionally for one app'), which is enough to separate it from the mutating siblings create_campaign_link and update_link_status. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Optionally for one app' implies when to pass app_id, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus create_campaign_link, update_link_status, or list_campaigns. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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