preview_qr_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 key behavioral traits: the tool generates a shareable URL (not the QR image itself) and that the URL leads to a web interface for viewing, customizing, and downloading. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the URL is permanent, which are important for a tool involving web resources.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds useful context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the output and its use, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and the nature of the output (a web interface link), but it could improve by addressing potential behavioral gaps like URL lifespan or error handling. Since there's no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'style') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but it doesn't need to compensate since the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the specific action ('Generate a shareable web preview URL for a QR code') and the resource ('QR code'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_qr_code' (which likely creates the QR image directly) and 'generate_qr_urls_batch' (which handles multiple). The verb 'generate' and target 'web preview URL' are precise.

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 usage by mentioning the output ('a link to the web interface where users can view, customize, and download the QR code'), suggesting it's for interactive previews rather than direct generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_qr_code' or 'get_available_styles', leaving the context somewhat inferred.

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