read_share_url

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the accepted URL variants and that the result is a decoded look plus settings, but says nothing about failure behavior for malformed/expired links, permission requirements, or the shape of the decoded payload.

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 sentences, no filler, and the purpose and accepted inputs are front-loaded before the workflow guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description still communicates the input contract and roughly what is returned ('the look and settings it carries'). The only gap is that the structure of the decoded look/settings is not characterized, which would matter more for a consumer of the output.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by enumerating the three link formats accepted beyond the schema's single '?c=…' example. This tells the agent the parameter is broader than the schema hint implies.

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?

Specific verb 'Decode' plus a named resource, with the three accepted link forms (studio share link, /looks/<id>, /embed URL) enumerated and the payload ('the look and settings it carries') stated. This cleanly distinguishes it from its inverse sibling build_share_url.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it when the user pastes a link') and routes the agent onward to the correct sibling ('pass the link as share_url to build_share_url with the changes they ask for'). The read/rebuild workflow is fully specified without inference.

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