get_phone_and_web_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is a link plus setup instructions, but discloses nothing further (e.g., that the link is static/shareable). With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences: the first names the returned artifact, the second gives the usage trigger. No filler, and the usage condition is front-loaded in its own sentence. The first sentence is a dense noun phrase but still readable.

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 zero-param static-link tool with an output schema already declaring the return shape, the description needs only to say what it returns and when to call it — both present. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 a specific resource: the Sakai-MCP connector address for both the browser (claude.ai) and the Claude phone app, plus how to add it. The 'get_phone_and_web_link' name is elaborated into concrete content. It is distinguishable from all siblings (which fetch course data) though the phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the student asks how to use Sakai-MCP on the web or phone.' This is clear context, but no alternatives or when-not conditions are named (none of the siblings overlap, so exclusions are largely unnecessary).

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