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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that failures are reported per item, preventing one bad URL from discarding the rest, and noting the API key/plan requirement. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the per-item failure behavior is a meaningful and useful disclosure beyond basic creation.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: the core capability and limit, the field reuse, and the failure isolation behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 relatively simple bulk creation tool with a single parameter, the description covers the critical context: limits, plan requirement, field reuse, and partial failure handling. The lack of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the per-item failure note, but a bit more detail about the response format would make it fully complete.

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 already documents the 'links' array and each nested field (url, title, customCode) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It does add a useful pointer that each entry takes the same fields as shorten_url, but this only slightly supplements what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Create up to 25 short links in one call') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool shorten_url by explicitly calling out the bulk behavior. It also communicates key constraints like the 25-link limit and the shared field structure, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 when this tool should be used instead of shorten_url: when multiple links need to be created at once. It also gives relevant context about the required ShareCut API key and Business plan. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of shorten_url for batches,' so the routing guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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