resolve_short_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two-part behavior (resolve URL + extract ASIN) and the accepted domains, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether it makes a network request, whether the short link might fail to resolve, or any redirect behavior/limitations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes accepted domains. Zero wasted words. Efficient and complete for what it claims.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers the input type and behavior adequately. Minor gap: no mention of output format (how the ASIN is returned), and potential failure modes aren't noted, but for a simple resolver this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter well with an example. The description adds value by clarifying accepted domains (a.co, amzn.to) and the resolution/extraction behavior, which aligns with the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') plus a clear resource (Amazon short link) and the goal (get full URL and extract ASIN). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like extract_asin since this tool resolves short links first, while the sibling likely works on already-expanded URLs.

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 implies this is for short links (a.co, amzn.to) vs regular Amazon URLs, which indirectly positions it against extract_asin. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if URL is already full) or name the sibling alternative directly.

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