LNX link in bio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the alternative-suggestion behavior when the name is taken, which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core check and ending with the fallback behavior. No redundant restatement of the name or title, and nothing to trim.

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, read-only availability check with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers what it does and what happens on failure. It is essentially complete, though it could note the result format of the check.

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 'username' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Desired username.' The description adds no format, length, or validation constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Checks whether ... is free') and a concrete resource (lnx.net/<username>), plus the fallback behavior of suggesting alternatives. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the create_page sibling, but the read-vs-create distinction is inferable.

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 'suggests alternatives if not' clause implies this is a pre-flight availability check to run before create_page, but the description never says when to use it or names create_page as the follow-up action. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare the non-readonly, non-destructive, non-open-world profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the returned claim_url, the ownership/claim flow, that a free account is required to publish, and critically that nothing goes public until the user acts. It omits anything on retries/idempotency or username-collision handling.

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 tight sentences with the core action and inputs front-loaded, followed by the lifecycle outcome. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the claim_url return and the non-public-until-published state, backed by annotations covering the safety profile. Only the check_username relationship and failure modes are absent.

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%, so every parameter including nested link/social fields, theme enum, and the username derivation rule is already documented. The description only restates that content comes from name, links, socials and bio, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: it builds a free link-in-bio page on lnx.net from named inputs and returns a claim_url. The draft-until-published semantics make the tool's role clear. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling check_username, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains the post-call lifecycle (open, view, edit, publish with a free account) which implies when this tool applies, but it gives no explicit when-to-use rule and never mentions the sibling check_username for validating the desired address. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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