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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: a 404 means the link is hidden, not that the uuid is invalid. This is exactly the kind of edge-case disclosure that helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 short sentences, zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying a potentially confusing error response.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the key behavioral edge case and gives the essential invocation condition. It does not describe the returned link structure, but 'Fetch one link' conveys the high-level outcome well enough.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'uuid' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a hidden link will still produce a 404 for a valid uuid, which is important for interpreting the parameter's correctness.

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: 'Fetch one link by uuid.' This clearly separates it from sibling list/search tools like split_get_collection_links and split_search_links, and the uuid-based lookup is unmistakable.

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 the tool should be used when you already know a link's uuid, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. There is no mention of split_search_links or split_get_collection_links, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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