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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve info and status' and gives no details about what fields are returned, how invalid or expired short links are handled, whether authentication is required, or whether the call has side effects such as incrementing click counts.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 one-parameter read tool, the definition is minimally workable, but there is no output schema and the description's 'info and status' is vague about the response shape. An agent would benefit from knowing what status information is returned and how missing or invalid short links are reported.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'surl' with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb, 'Retrieve', and a concrete resource, 'info and status about an existing short link'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which create short links, update aliases/destinations, or retrieve account limits.

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 phrase 'existing short link' makes the intended use case clear: reading information/status rather than creating or updating. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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