List DeepLinkNow links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds ordering semantics, the auth mechanism (private API key scoping to one app), the paid-plan requirement, and the fact that auto-generated on-demand links are included in results. It doesn't describe pagination limits or result volume, which the schema partly covers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then constraints and prerequisites. The clause enumerating link provenance is informative rather than padding, and nothing is redundant.

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 six-parameter, zero-required, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, ordering, filtering, auth and plan gating. It could say more about what a returned link record contains (target, campaign, created date) since there is no output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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% – every parameter (page, limit, query, offset, url_path, campaign_id) already carries its own constraints and semantics, including the query/url_path incompatibility. The description only restates 'optional text search, campaign filter and paging' without adding format or edge-case detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the deep links of the app that DEEPLINKNOW_API_KEY belongs to') plus scope details: ordering (newest first), what a link contains (short URLs), and the two provenance types (dashboard/API-created vs on-demand from first path visit). This is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like create_link, search_docs, or get_setup_guide.

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 real prerequisite ('Needs a paid plan with management API access') and names the filtering levers (text search, campaign filter, paging), so an agent knows both the access gate and the narrowing options. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling tool or when not to call it, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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