How to create a dynamic QR code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: this tool is informational and produces no side effects, unlike a code-minting tool. It says nothing about what the response contains (steps, link, explanation text) or whether any account/site state is required.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the core action first and the critical disambiguation second. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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 zero-parameter informational tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what the caller gets back (guidance text? a link? steps?). The agent knows what the tool does and doesn't do, but not what it returns.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify and the schema (vacuously 100% covered) leaves nothing undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('a trackable dynamic QR on useqr.co'), and it explicitly carves out what it is NOT ('does not mint codes'), which functionally separates it from generate_qr_code. It stops short of naming the sibling tool that actually mints codes, so an agent still has to infer the mapping.

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?

There is a genuine when-not signal ('This tool does not mint codes'), which implies generate_qr_code is the right choice for actually producing a code. However, no alternative is named and no positive when-to-use condition (e.g. 'call this when the user asks how tracking works') is stated, leaving the routing implicit.

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