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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions a five-state status and the destination condition, but it doesn't clarify that this is a read-only operation, describe the states, or mention error/edge cases. The cryptic 'Soft C' phrase adds confusion rather than clarity. This is a significant gap for a tool that has no annotation support.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with the endpoint and a key condition front-loaded. No wasted words, but the cryptic 'Soft C five-state' could be clarified. It's appropriately sized for a simple GET tool.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description leaves the meaning of 'Soft C five-state status' unexplained and doesn't clarify the full state model or whether this tool is the right choice for retrieving a link's destination. Given the low complexity, more clarity on the status semantics would make it 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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter as a short code/link id, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't contradict or add value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states it's a GET for a link's status via id, and the phrase 'Destination only when state=active' hints at a key behavior. However, 'Soft C five-state status' is jargon that may confuse an agent, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_links (which could also return status for multiple links). Still, it's clear enough about the resource and action.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_links, resolve_short_url, or get_link_analytics. It only states a condition about the destination field, which is a behavioral detail rather than a selection criterion. An agent would have to infer when this is the right call.

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