build_utm_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Build') without revealing return format, side effects, validation rules, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool that constructs a URL, an agent might expect to know if it returns a string, whether it encodes parameters, etc. This is a significant gap, rating a 2.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, but since it is concise and not tautological, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what each parameter means, the expected return, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly with the provided information, so contextual completeness is 1.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not—no parameter semantics are provided beyond the raw schema names. The description adds zero value in this dimension, so a score of 1 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Build' and resource 'UTM-tagged URL' with a purpose ('for campaign tracking'). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from the sibling 'parse_utm_params', which performs the inverse operation. Hence a 4, clear but lacking sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., parse_utm_params for parsing instead of building). There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. This falls under 'no guidance', earning a 2.

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