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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the trailing 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The description does add real context beyond the annotations: the fields the call surfaces and the precondition that a valid ID must already exist. It does not discuss output shape or error behavior, but an output schema exists, so the gap is minor.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the trigger condition, the returned fields, the ID prerequisite, and the safety profile. Nothing needs to be read twice; the only near-waste is the redundant 'Read-only.'

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema needs only a trigger condition and a precondition, and both are present. Nothing an agent needs before calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already carries 'Short link ID from `list_short_links`. Never guess an ID.' The description reinforces the same sourcing rule but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the full settings of one short link) and enumerates exactly what comes back: destination, on/off state, password, schedule, click limit. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from get_short_link_clicks (analytics) and list_short_links (enumeration) without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this when the user wants the full settings of one short link' gives a clear positive condition, and 'Needs the ID from `list_short_links`' routes the agent to the prerequisite sibling. There is no explicit when-not or mention of get_short_link_clicks as the alternative for scan/click data, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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