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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the field listing; it does not mention potential errors (e.g., not found) or response shape, but the output schema covers the response. For a read operation with these annotations, 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and ID reference, then enumerates the return fields compactly. This is an efficient communication that earns every word.

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 a detailed output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and returns. The absence of error handling details and sibling differentiation is offset by the output schema and the obvious nature of the operation. Completeness is high.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The sole parameter, 'id', is self-explanatory as the identifier of the QR code. The description implies that 'id' is the identifier and does not add format-specific details, but given the simplicity and that the output schema is richly described, a 4 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('QR code by id'), and lists the specific fields returned (what it opens, dynamic status, short link, scan count, image URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_qr_image and get_scan_stats, which focus on specific aspects. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool for those narrower queries.

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 context implies that this tool is for retrieving all details of a single QR code, which is distinct from list_qr_codes (for listing), get_qr_image (for images only), and get_scan_stats (for scanness only). It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., 'Use this when you need full details, not just image or stats'), but the field list makes the intended use clear.

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