list_distribution_links

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

The description explicitly discloses beyond annotations that this GET can update contact-frequency state and reset email-status dates, providing critical behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) only hint at.

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 core purpose, and a critical warning. No unnecessary words.

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?

While parameters are well documented in schema, the description does not elaborate on the output structure (e.g., format of links, pagination details). For a tool without output schema, more context would be helpful.

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% with all parameters described, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'List one page of generated individual survey links', specifying the verb (list), resource (individual survey links), and pagination (one page). It distinguishes from siblings like list_distributions which list distributions, not links.

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 warns of side effects and required scope, implying caution and suggesting when not to use (if avoiding state changes), but does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_distributions for read-only distribution listing.

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