dashboard_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns a link and adds a critical caveat about the non-existent '/seo/roadmap' page, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention authentication or error behavior for invalid sections, though these are less critical for a simple link generator.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a valuable usage instruction in the second. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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's low complexity and the well-structured enum schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the critical section mapping caveat. The phrase 'clickable browser link' sufficiently indicates the return type. It omits edge-case details like brand validation, but these are not essential for this simple utility. It achieves near-complete guidance.

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% with both parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'seo_briefs' mapping, but this information is already present in the schema's 'section' description ('SEO roadmap/content plan → seo_briefs. Reddit module → reddit.'). The description adds limited new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific action ('Return a clickable browser link') and a clear resource ('PostKing dashboard page'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it should always be used instead of guessing dashboard URLs, establishing it as the designated link generator.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS use this instead of guessing dashboard URLs.' It also clarifies the correct section for the SEO roadmap/content plan ('seo_briefs'), preventing misuse of the tool and guiding correct parameter selection. No alternatives are needed since this is the sole tool for dashboard links.

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