list_entity_shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether results are paginated, what the search parameter matches, or what a share record contains. The description adds very little beyond the operation name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and supported entity scope immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 five-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent would still need to infer pagination behavior, search semantics, permission requirements, and the difference from sibling share-listing tools.

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% across five parameters. The description names the four entityType values, but the schema already provides that enum, and it says nothing about entityId, page, pageSize, or search semantics. It therefore does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: list shares. It also scopes the tool to four entity types (website, link, pixel, board), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_website_shares or clarify when the broader entity-type version should be preferred.

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 implies usage by naming the supported entity types, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools such as list_website_shares or get_share. The agent must infer the selection context from the tool name and schema.

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