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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the required authorization header, rejection without it, and that reading is open to everyone. This adds important context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover potential rate limits or side effects like burnAfterRead.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential auth context in just two sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, auth requirement, and return value (a URL) despite the absence of an output schema. It gives enough context for a simple creation tool, though it could be more explicit about the read_shorttext counterpart.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions Markdown support, which is already in the body parameter description, and the auth header, which is not a tool parameter.

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 states the action ('Create a new shortText') and the resource, and specifies the output ('shareable shorttext.com URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool read_shorttext, which focuses on reading.

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 provides clear context that creation requires an API key and is rejected without it, while reading remains open. This implies when to use this tool vs. reading, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide an explicit 'when-not' beyond the auth requirement.

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