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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the operator knows it is a non-mutating, network-facing read. The description adds that the result includes a canonical PDS getRecord URL, which implies a network fetch, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or rate limits.

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?

Content is front-loaded into a single sentence that leads with the transformation and then the usage cue. It is appropriately sized, marred only by a minor typo ('links,a') and slight run-on structure.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it usefully previews the three link kinds. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only auth/error behavior is unaddressed.

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% with one parameter, and the schema already documents 'at:// URI, handle, or DID'. The description repeats the same accepted input forms without adding syntax or format detail, so it stays at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 ('Turn ... into') and a precise set of outputs: a shareable web link, a Bluesky/Blacksky app URL, and the canonical PDS getRecord URL. This separates it from sibling read tools like get_record or resolve, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 a clear trigger condition — 'Use when the user wants a clickable/pasteable link' — which is a meaningful when-to-use cue. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools such as resolve or get_record for non-link needs.

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