Linkly MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('click counts over time') but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens with large date ranges. For a data retrieval tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and context, the second clarifies the return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks information about authentication, rate limits, error handling, and output structure details that would be helpful given the complexity of the filtering options.

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get time-series click analytics data for charting') and resource ('click analytics data'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_clicks (which likely returns raw click data) or get_analytics_by (which might have different aggregation). It explicitly mentions the output format ('Returns click counts over time'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for charting time-series data, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clicks or get_analytics_by. It provides context about the return format (time-series for charting), but lacks guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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