List secret links

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: a hard capability ceiling (secret text is never returned by design) and the shape of what is returned (status, view count, expiry, metadata only). It does not discuss pagination behavior, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and capability boundary, then the usage case. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the name or schema.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields, and the remaining mechanics (limit, cursor) are fully specified in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so limit and cursor are already documented in the schema with their defaults and semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List secret links on the account') and immediately bounds the scope with what the tool cannot do ('no route can return the secret text or the key'). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling list_links and from any retrieval intent without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use case ('check whether one has been opened yet') and an explicit when-not ('cannot be used to read a secret back'), which is genuinely useful for steering the agent away from a wrong expectation. It stops short of naming alternatives such as list_links or revoke_secret, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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