get_item_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a URL, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, error handling (e.g., if item not found), or limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and includes both the action and the return value. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, search criteria, and return type. It could clarify if the returned URL is a direct link or requires formatting, but it sufficiently explains the outcome.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'query'. The description adds that 'query' can be an asset ID, item name, or description, which is meaningful context beyond the schema's general description of 'Search query'.

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 retrieves a direct link to an item by searching via asset ID, name, or description. It explicitly positions itself as the preferred tool for link requests, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_item' that return item details.

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 explicitly says 'This is the preferred tool when users ask for links to specific items,' providing direct usage guidance. However, it does not specify alternatives or when not to use it, but given the context, it is still clear.

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