accesso_resolve_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this resolves a wrapped URL rather than performing a lookup, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid, malformed, or non-tracking links. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core transformation is stated first, and the conditional usage guidance is added without redundancy.

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, read-only resolution tool, the description covers the input, the transformation, and the key use condition. It does not explain error behavior or return format, but those are less critical for a simple resolver, especially with no output schema expected.

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 fully documents the single 'url' parameter. The description repeats the same idea ('tracking link from the email') without adding format, constraints, or example semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Turn'), a clear resource ('an order-confirmation email's click-tracking link'), and a precise outcome ('the direct accesso ticket URL it wraps'). This fully differentiates the tool from sibling operations like get_order or get_ticket.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when a link is not already an accessoticketing.com address, which gives a clear conditional trigger. It does not name an alternative for already-direct links, but the 'use when' condition is unambiguous enough for the agent to decide.

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