youfiliate_check_link_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the rate limit, the scope of health check (all URLs), and the return status values. It confirms non-modification, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured, with a clear opening statement, then bullet-like details on scope, rate limit, and common errors. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 has only one required parameter, an output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations covering safety, the description fully addresses what the tool does, its limitations, and error handling. No additional information is needed for correct usage.

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 input schema includes descriptions for both parameters (id and response_format), reducing the need for description to add further semantics. The description mentions 'smart link UUID' implicitly but does not elaborate on response_format options. With schema already covering the parameters, the description adds marginal value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 it triggers a health check for a specific smart link. It explains what is checked (default URL and geo-rule URLs) and what is returned (health status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, update, and delete by emphasizing it is a read-only check.

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 provides clear usage context, including rate limiting (once per 5 minutes per link) and common errors. It explicitly states it does NOT modify the link configuration, helping agents avoid using it for mutation. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or when not to use it beyond the rate limit.

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