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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that aliases resolve to dynamic codes without changing the QR slug, that counts are separated, that free accounts have zero alias allowance (Pro has 10), and that an OpenQR API key is required. This is substantial, though it does not describe failure behavior when the allowance is exceeded.

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 sentences deliver purpose, use case, quotas, and authentication with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the alias does, why to use it, quota limits, and auth requirement. It does not mention error/response behavior, but the schema covers parameter-level invocation details.

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 100%, and the schema already documents id and slug thoroughly, including syntax and optionality. The description adds use-case context but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an extra short link (link alias) that resolves where one of your dynamic codes points.' It distinguishes the tool from create_dynamic_qr by explaining that the alias is an additional slug while the QR keeps its own slug, so scans and clicks are counted separately.

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 gives a clear use case: sharing a different slug per channel while preserving the QR's slug for separate counting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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