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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds real context beyond annotations: what the response contains (sharer, summary, author) and a negative constraint (no share time). It could still mention linkage/expiry behavior of share links, but the disclosure is solid for this operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the routing caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, safety is covered by annotations, and the sole parameter is fully specified. The description adds the purpose, the alternative tool, and a scoping caveat, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so this is the baseline case. The description restates that it accepts a short link or full share text, matching the schema without adding format or syntax detail beyond it.

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 and resource (get share info from a share short link or full share text) and enumerates the exact outputs: sharer, note summary, and author. It also distinguishes itself from the note detail tool, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: when the full note content is needed, use the note detail tool instead. It also scopes itself by noting the share info excludes share time. The only minor gap is that it names the alternative generically ("笔记详情工具") rather than a specific sibling, but the intent is unambiguous.

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