get_badge_link

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that no scan is triggered, no network call is made, and no auth is required. It also specifies the exact return shape (JSON with badgeUrl). This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details, then usage distinction. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema fields beyond necessary clarification.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return format. It covers purpose, usage, side effects, and parameter semantics, making it self-contained for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 50%, and the description compensates by listing style options with the default, which clarifies the style parameter. The domain parameter already has a clear schema description, so the description adds minimal extra meaning but still contributes useful guidance for style.

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 tool builds an SVG badge URL for a domain's security score, explicitly noting it is pure URL construction with no scan or network call. It also distinguishes itself from get_pdf_report_link, 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use for embeddable status badges, and use get_pdf_report_link for downloadable full reports. The description also clarifies scenarios where this tool is appropriate (README, GitHub, status pages), meeting the when/when-not criteria.

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