normalize_media_link

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those annotations: parsing is local, availability is not checked, and no metadata or content is fetched.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key non-goals. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter read-only canonicalizer with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers scope and important non-goals well. It does not explain the exact return shape of a canonicalized URL, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the tool's purpose is still sufficiently clear.

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%, with both the URL and platform parameters already documented in the schema. The description enumerates supported platforms as part of the tool scope but adds no further parameter syntax or constraints 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 specific verbs (validate, canonicalize) and names the exact resource types and platforms: Spotify track/playlist, Instagram post/reel, and Twitter/X status URLs. This makes the tool's scope immediately clear without needing sibling differentiation.

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 clearly implies usage for local URL validation and canonicalization, and explicitly excludes availability checks, metadata fetching, and downloads. No alternatives are named, but there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, so the context is sufficient.

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