Read a share link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the operation is a decode that extracts look and settings, but says nothing about failure behavior for malformed or expired links, which matters for a link-parsing tool. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the routing instruction. No filler or restated field names.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose, input shape and workflow. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the decoded result or error cases, which is a minor omission for a single-param read 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by enumerating the accepted link formats, which the schema example ('https://globestudio.app/?c=…') does not convey, so it adds real meaning about valid inputs.

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 (decode) and resource (a Globestudio share link), and enumerates the three link shapes it accepts (studio share link, /looks/<id>, /embed URL). It also states what it yields — 'the look and settings it carries' — which separates it from the write-oriented 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?

It states the triggering condition explicitly ('Use it when the user pastes a link') and names the downstream alternative, build_share_url, along with what to do with the result. An agent knows both when to pick this tool and what to do next without opening another schema.

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