get_qr_code_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it returns a URL rather than binary image data. However, it does not disclose error behavior, URL format details, or any side effects, but for a read-only operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single clarifying note about the return type. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and only 22% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It explains the return type but not what the other parameters do (e.g., size, format, errorCorrection), nor does it describe the URL structure or error conditions. The agent would be guessing on most parameters.

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 only 22%, yet the description adds no parameter details beyond naming 'short code'. Optional parameters like size, color, format, margin, bgColor, roundBlockSize, and errorCorrection are left undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the low 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?

The description clearly names the action ('Build'), the resource ('public Shlink QR-code image URL'), and the input ('for a short code'). It also distinguishes the tool by stating it returns a URL rather than binary image data, setting it apart from any potential image-downloading sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a QR-code image URL. The explicit clarification that it returns a URL instead of downloading binary data provides a clear exclusion (if you want binary data, this tool is not appropriate). No alternative tool is named, but none exists among siblings.

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