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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the link is 'inert until shared; deletable' and counts clicks per link. However, it doesn't mention any auth requirements, idempotency, or what the response looks like. Adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 moderately sized but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds example queries, usage guidance, and behavioral notes. Each sentence adds value, though the flow could be slightly tighter.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and some behavior, but omits the 'platform' parameter and doesn't describe the return value or error cases. It also doesn't mention if the link is immediately usable after creation. Incomplete but adequate for the most common call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'name' is the only required field and that flow_id 'deep-links into that automation.' However, the 'platform' parameter is left entirely unexplained, and there is no detail on formats or constraints beyond the schema. Partial compensation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a shareable tracked ref link' with specific functionality (per-link click counting, primitive behind referral links). It includes concrete example queries, making the purpose unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the scope is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 states this is a FIRST call tool requiring only a name, and names what NOT to do first (whoami, current_page_context, list_accounts). It also clarifies the optional flow_id's role. This gives clear when-to-use and exclusions.

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