links_get_link_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety, but it adds no additional behavioral context. It doesn't mention what the response contains or any special behaviors such as field filtering or defaults. Since the description adds nothing beyond annotations, it scores low.

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 with no wasted words, which is good, but it lacks any structure or additional information. It's a minimal label rather than a helpful description, so while concise, it doesn't add value beyond the name. It is not verbose but under-specifies.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the operation returns (e.g., a link object) or any usage context, such as how the locationId default works in practice. Given the annotations cover safety but not functionality, the description should at least mention that it retrieves a link's details, but it doesn't. This leaves the agent without key information.

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 both linkId and locationId have descriptions in the schema, with locationId noting it defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted. The description 'Get Link by ID' adds nothing about parameters, and the schema already explains them fully. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a resource 'Link' and an identifier 'ID', clearly indicating it fetches a single link by its ID. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list-oriented tools like links_get_links, though the name partially conveys that. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used when a specific link ID is known, nor does it reference other link-related tools like links_get_links or links_search_trigger_links. There is no context for selection criteria.

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