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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses real behavioral traits the schema does not: placement inheritance of the parent destination, placements carrying their own UTM, and the return of `shortUrl` ready to publish. It omits auth/permission needs and failure modes, but the core semantic quirks are covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the two modes, then the return value. Four dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries load-bearing information.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical branching logic and the return value. The rich schema handles domain/slug/label details, so little is missing, though auth requirements and failure behavior are absent.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the `parentId`/`destination` interaction and the UTM inheritance for placements, which the schema's field descriptions only partially convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Crée un lien court') and immediately splits the tool into its two distinct modes (lien parent vs placement), which is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like update_link and get_link. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the two modes: without `parentId` it's a parent link needing `destination`; with `parentId` it's a placement inheriting the parent's destination. However, it names no alternative sibling tools and gives no exclusions beyond the parent/placement split.

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