resolve_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Quota cost is 1 unit,' which informs about rate limits or resource consumption—valuable context not in the schema. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error handling, performance, or what 'resolve' entails (e.g., returns expanded URL, status code). The description adds meaningful context but could be more comprehensive.

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 zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential behavioral context (quota cost). Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and quota cost but lacks details on what 'resolve' means operationally, expected outputs, or error cases. For a tool with no output schema, more clarity on return values would improve completeness, but it's adequate as a minimum viable description.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'X-CACHEBYPASS') with examples and notes. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to rules, with high coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here.

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 tool 'Resolve URLs like handles, etc.' which provides a general purpose (resolving URLs) but is vague about what 'resolve' means operationally (e.g., expand short URLs, validate links, fetch metadata) and doesn't specify the resource or outcome. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'video_details' or 'search', which might also process URLs. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 alternatives. With sibling tools like 'video_details', 'channel_videos', and 'search' that might handle URL-related tasks, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The mention of 'Quota cost is 1 unit' hints at resource usage but doesn't inform tool selection decisions.

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