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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by clarifying that lifetime visits combine short-link clicks and QR scans, which is not inferable from the schema or annotations. It does not mention pagination or account-scoping nuances, but those are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core return promise and key fields appear first, followed by the lifetime-visits nuancehol and a clear sibling-tool routing sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation properties.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters), full schema coverage, and a present output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers the purpose, the data shape, the when-to-use context, and the alternative tool. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so no further detail is required.

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%, with both `limit` and `typology` already documented, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's phrase 'filter by link type' loosely aligns with the typology parameter but adds no concrete syntax or enumeration information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair ('Return the account's QRCodeKIT links as structured data') and enumerates the exact fields in the result, such as title, short URL, slug, QR image URLs, and lifetime visits. It also names the sibling tool it is not ('Use show_links instead...'), which removes any ambiguity about which tool the agent should select.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the assistant needs to 'search, filter by link type, compare, inspect, or process existing links programmatically.' It additionally gives a concrete exclusion by directing display/download requests to 'show_links instead,' making the routing decision fully explicit.

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