L1NK

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false) and not idempotent or destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that it returns a shortUrl suitable for sharing, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not discuss uniqueness constraints on alias, plan restrictions on expiration, or error behavior, but this is not required at a high level.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the return value is stated immediately after, which is exactly what an agent needs to know first.

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?

The tool has a clear creation purpose, all five parameters are fully documented, annotations cover the mutation profile, and the description names the primary output (shortUrl). With no output schema, it would be slightly stronger to mention other possible response fields, but for a link creation tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 already has a detailed description. The tool description adds minimal information about the URL relationship but does not need to because the schema carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this complete schema coverage.

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: 'Create a short link that redirects to a URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools delete_link, get_link, list_links, and update_link by the action it performs.

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 use case is implied by the name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings, such as 'use this to create a new link, update_link to modify existing, delete_link to remove.' An agent can infer it from the name, but the description does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the deletion is permanent and results in a 'not found' response for subsequent accesses. It also instructs to confirm with the user, which is a meaningful operational trait. It does not contradict the idempotentHint=true annotation, though it does not elaborate on idempotency.

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 convey the action, the consequence, and a user-confirmation requirement with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) and an idempotentHint, the description covers the essential semantics. It could mention what happens when the link doesn't exist, but that is not critical given the idempotentHint. The confirmation instruction is an important operational detail not in annotations.

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 fully documents the 'code' parameter with a pattern and description, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 the action ('Delete a link permanently') and the consequence ('Anyone opening it afterwards gets 'not found'') with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_link or get_link, as it is the only destruction tool.

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 clear when-to-use context (deleting a link) and adds a specific guideline: 'Confirm with the user first.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes the usage obvious. A 5 would require naming a sibling or an explicit 'use X instead' clause.

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 readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint (plan caps on lookback: Free 30 days, Pro 365) but doesn't describe return formatting, pagination, or what happens if days exceeds the plan cap, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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 with no filler: the first names the resource and payload, the second states the plan constraint. The most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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-optional-parameter read-only analytics tool, the description covers scope, output components, and plan limitations, which is nearly complete for selecting and invoking it. The only gap is that it doesn't specify behavior when `days` exceeds the plan cap (clamping vs error), and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 lone parameter `days` is fully documented in the input schema, including bounds and default, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The description's plan-cap note complements the parameter but adds no additional syntax or format semantics, 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?

The description pairs the verb 'Get' with the resource 'click analytics' and enumerates the payload (totals, bots, daily series, top links), so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. The whole-account scope further separates it from the sibling link-management tools like get_link and list_links.

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?

It states the tool is for account-wide click analytics and notes the plan-based lookback cap, giving an agent the context needed to decide when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion rules, but among the link-management siblings its purpose is unambiguous.

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 readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main contribution is listing the returned fields. It adds useful context about what data is included, but does not disclose error/not-found behavior, date formats, or how far back 'recent click history' goes.

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, tightly structured sentence: it fronts the resource ('one link') and then lists the returned details in a compact colon-separated enumeration. Every part 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 simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, annotations, and sibling context, the description covers the essential return fields. It could be more precise about 'recent' history limits and date formats, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it.

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%; the input schema already defines the code parameter and its meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (one link) and enumerates the returned details: destination, clicks, dates, last click, and click history. This distinguishes it from list_links (multiple links) and get_analytics (aggregate analytics), despite the verbless phrasing.

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 'one link' phrasing implies use for retrieving a single link's details, which differentiates it from listing all links. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_analytics or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explicitly excluding expired links and including click counts, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape, so it provides only moderate added transparency.

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 entire description is one direct sentence that states the action, resource, filtering criterion, and included data. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies what is listed, which items are included, and what data is returned. No output schema exists, but the description implies the relevant output without requiring further guidance.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not repeat schema details and carries no parameter burden; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('links of the account'), and adds meaningful scope: only active/non-expired links and includes click counts. This distinguishes it from get_link (single link) and get_analytics (analytics-specific) without ambiguity.

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 conveys that this tool is for listing active, non-expired links with click counts, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, but the sibling tool names make the distinction inferable.

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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds the Pro-plan restriction for setting an expiry and clarifies that the short code remains unchanged, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the mutual exclusivity of expires_in_days and remove_expiration (though the schema states it) or any error conditions, so it adds moderate value beyond 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the constraint on the short code is stated at the end. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It omits the mutual exclusivity of the expiry parameters (though the schema states it), any return-value expectations (no output schema exists), and prerequisites like the link needing to exist. It covers the core operations but leaves some contextual gaps.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds a high-level mapping: 'Change where a link points' to url, 'set a new expiry' to expires_in_days, 'remove its expiry' to remove_expiration, and 'short code stays the same' to code. It also reveals the Pro requirement for expiry, which is not present in the schema, providing meaning beyond what the schema alone offers.

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 clearly states the action ('Change where a link points') and the resource (link), and specifies what can change: destination URL and expiry (set or remove). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_link and create_link by focusing on modification, and the note 'short code stays the same' further scopes the operation.

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 implies usage when modifying an existing link, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_link or delete_link, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the link must exist). There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it's for updates.

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