QR for Agent

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Compensates partially by disclosing return values ('target URL, metadata, and timestamps'), but omits error behavior (e.g., 404 if ID not found), idempotency guarantees, or permission requirements.

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 with zero waste: first establishes action and method, second specifies return payload. Front-loaded with essential operation verb. No redundancy with schema or title.

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 single-parameter lookup tool without output schema, description adequately compensates by describing return structure. Minor gap on error handling documentation, but sufficient for agent to select and invoke correctly given the simple input contract.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'by its short ID' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about ID format, length constraints, or lookup behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieve' with clear resource 'QR code' and identifier 'short ID'. Distinct from siblings like list_qr_codes (single vs bulk), create_qr_code (read vs write), and delete_qr_code (safe retrieval vs destructive).

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?

Implies usage pattern (lookup by specific ID vs listing), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_qr_codes or what constitutes a valid short_id format. No mention of prerequisites or error cases.

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