Get a short link's click count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states there is no geographic/device/referrer breakdown and that no API key is needed. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining data limits and authentication requirements.

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 two sentences long with no redundant phrasing. The first sentence clearly states the function, and the second adds important limitations and the no-auth detail, making every sentence purposeful.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it returns, what data is not available, and that no API key is needed. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% (the 'slug' parameter is fully described as the short code). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('total number of times a short link has been followed'), clearly defining the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on click count, unlike link management tools such as shorten_link or delete_link.

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 states that this is the only click data available and clarifies that no per-visitor breakdown exists, giving clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it guides usage by setting expectations about what data is not available.

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