list_share_link_bundles

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds useful context about bundle semantics and optional filters/pagination, but does not disclose return shape, pagination defaults, or ordering behavior. This is adequate for a read-only list tool but not rich.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, defines the resource in a parenthetical, and then lists the relevant optional behaviors. Every phrase earns its place.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, status filtering, and pagination, but leaves ordering completely unaddressed and says nothing about the return format. Given that the schema also lacks ordering documentation, the description could do more to make the tool fully self-explanatory.

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 50%; page and page_size are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for status ('status filter') and pagination, which helps, but it does not mention the ordering parameter at all, and ordering has no schema description. The description partly compensates for schema gaps but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('share link bundles'), and adds a clarifying parenthetical ('one public link to a ZIP of several documents') that distinguishes it from the sibling list_share_links operation. An agent can tell what this tool does and what kind of resource it targets without opening 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?

The description gives clear usage context: list bundles, optionally filtering by status and using pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_share_link_bundle for a single bundle, but the resource definition strongly implies when this tool is appropriate. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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