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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: the tool returns a URL pointer, not stats data. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when an identifier is unrecognized, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the scope plus the 'returns where' clarification are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, and what it returns. Missing only edge-case behavior such as invalid identifiers or auth requirements.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nuance beyond the schema by clarifying that the identifier may be a destination URL of a short link or QR code, an accepted form the schema entry does not spell out.

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 (get) and resource (stats page URL) and explicitly clarifies that it returns the location rather than the stats themselves ('Stats themselves are viewed on b59.link; this returns where'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like lookup_url and shorten_url, which return data rather than a view URL.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies ('for anything b59.link tracks') and enumerates the acceptable identifier shapes, which implicitly guides usage. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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