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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral clue ('after creating a link') and explains the output's purpose, but it does not disclose edge cases, error behavior, or URL formatting. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage note is placed immediately after, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, its use case, and the required precondition. It does not explain return format details, but the return value ('shareable URL') is obvious from the stated purpose.

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 only parameter, uuid, has no schema description, and the description does not explicitly map it to the link identifier. However, phrases like 'for a link' and 'after creating a link' allow an agent to infer that uuid likely refers to the created link. This is helpful but not fully explicit, leaving some room for assumption.

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 and resource: 'Get the shareable “shop it” URL for a link.' It also clarifies the real-world meaning ('this is what the creator posts'), which differentiates it from other getters like split_get_link or split_get_discount_code. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of the tool's function.

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 gives explicit context for when to call the tool: 'Call it after creating a link.' This is a clear usage trigger. It does not name when not to use it or cite alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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