Report public link expiry

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: URLs are omitted from results, only 100 shared items are checked with a capped:true overflow signal, and the caller is told to narrow the path. The 'Changes nothing' line is redundant with the annotations, and the cache/refresh behavior is left to the schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action and return shape come first, caveats second. The field list is long but each entry earns its place; the only minor flaw is the awkward phrasing 'expiringSoon (within withinDays)'.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating every field, plus ordering (soonest expiry first) and the truncation signal. For a three-parameter read-only report tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying withinDays to the expiringSoon output field, which the schema alone does not state. The path parameter's scoping effect ('under a path') is also restated meaningfully; refresh/caching is left entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List public share links under a path') plus the differentiating dimension (expiry), and enumerates the exact return fields. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling drive_sharing_audit because the description explicitly says it is 'built on the sharing audit' while returning expiry-focused data.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'narrow the path' hints at what to do when capped:true fires, and 'Built on the sharing audit' signals the relationship to the audit tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or a named alternative for the case where the agent wants full sharing detail rather than expiry data.

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