Get a link to a record

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that the URL is built locally with no round-trip to Creatio, that a signed-out visitor is routed through login, and that an object with no record page falls back to the home page. Those are exactly the runtime behaviors an agent could not infer from 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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by usage and edge cases — no filler. The leading "{ url }" placeholder notation is slightly awkward but costs nothing in length.

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 two-parameter, read-only helper with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the local-computation behavior, and the two meaningful fallbacks. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (record id with a UUID pattern, entity name with examples such as "Contact"). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 names the exact resource produced (a URL that opens a record in Creatio) and its scope (classic vs Freedom UI handled automatically). No sibling tool returns a record link, so the boundary is unambiguous from the sentence alone.

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?

"Give it to the user whenever you refer to a specific record" gives a clear usage trigger. It doesn't name any alternative tool or say when not to use it, but there is no close sibling to disambiguate against, so the gap is minor.

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