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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description adds useful behavior: many listings do not sell online, in which case the answer says so and provides the listing page. It also sets a clear transaction boundary by telling the agent never to order or pay for the user.

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 three compact sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the fallback behavior and transaction warning in a logical order.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides enough context about what is returned and how to handle listings without online sales. It does not specify the exact return format, but no output schema exists and the described behavior is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The single org_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it can come from a search or be an older key/plain slug. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the resource: a link to a club or store's online shop on Hat Trick Local. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling link tools like create_claim_link or create_correction_link, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 description implies the tool is used to provide a shop link and explicitly warns the agent never to order or pay for the user. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as create_claim_link, create_correction_link, get_club, or get_store.

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