accesso_resolve_link

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior, and the description adds that the tool unwraps the tracking URL into the wrapped accesso URL. This transformation detail goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the operation does. It does not discuss failure modes, but for a simple one-parameter read-only resolver this is sufficient.

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 carry the full operational and usage context without any filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated immediately after, making the description efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the input is, when to use it, and what the result will be (the direct accesso ticket URL). Minor missing details like invalid-link handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema's parameter description is already informative, and the tool description adds further meaning by specifying that the URL must be a 'click-tracking link' and should not already be an accessoticketing.com address. This extra constraint helps the agent pass a valid input.

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 operation—'resolve' a click-tracking link into the 'direct accesso ticket URL'—with a clear resource and result. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the input type, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use when a link is not already an accessoticketing.com address.' This tells the agent when the tool applies and, conversely, when it should not be used, providing a clear decision rule.

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