Retrieve links count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workspace scoping constraint, but says nothing about whether the 12 filter parameters change the returned count or what the response shape looks like. Adequate but thin given the annotation baseline.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and filter context an agent would benefit from on a 12-parameter tool.

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 tool with 12 optional filter parameters, grouping options, and no output schema, the description is substantially under-specified. It fails to convey that the count is shaped by the many filters, which is the key functional behavior an agent must know.

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%, so the schema already documents every filter (domain, search, tag_ids, group_by, show_archived, etc.), making 3 the correct baseline. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and never signals that these filters scope the count.

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 specific verb+resource ('Retrieve the number of links') and scopes it to the authenticated workspace, so an agent understands it returns a count rather than a list. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_links or get_link_stats, which would be the main sources of confusion.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling alternatives. An agent wanting a count vs. actually listing links (list_links) or pulling statistics (get_link_stats) gets no routing help at all.

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