list_collective_shares

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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the own-links-only visibility rule and the meaning of page_id (null for whole-collective links, landing-page ID for landing-page links).

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?

Front-loaded with the key scoping statement, then follows with the argument and return notes. The 'Args' block partly restates the single schema property, which is minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, this covers the essentials: purpose, scope, the parameter, and the notable return fields. Only the absence of any alternative-tool routing keeps it short of complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by defining collective_id as 'The numeric collective ID' — a real clarification of type and meaning that the bare schema title lacks.

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 your public links to a collective and to its single pages') and immediately narrows scope with 'other members' links are not shown', which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_shares, list_pending_shares, and get_share.

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 scope sentence implies when this is the right call (you want your own shares, not others'), but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit condition for choosing it over get_share/list_shares. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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