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 does disclose two useful behavioral facts — that the URL returned is the resolved FINAL destination as received by the landing site, and that the click window is fixed at 30 days — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior for an invalid/unknown id.

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 sentence with zero padding, front-loading the resource and then the two returned data points. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover return values itself; it does so at a high level (final destination, 30-day clicks) but omits response shape, error behavior, and any auth context. Adequate for a trivial one-parameter read tool, but with clear gaps.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup hints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (détaille) and resource (un lien) and enumerates what it returns: the FINAL destination with UTM parameters plus 30-day click counts. This is enough to separate it from list_links, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation from get_analytics (which also surfaces click data) is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that the id must come from list_links). The overlap with get_analytics on click metrics is a genuine ambiguity that goes unaddressed.

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