get_share_link

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond 'full details,' which hints at response richness but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, pagination, or scope. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds minimal value over them.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it could include slightly more context without becoming bloated.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint, the description and schema together are mostly sufficient: the required id is documented, the read behavior is annotated, and 'full details' indicates response richness. There is no output schema, but the missing specifics do not block correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the single parameter. It only repeats 'by ID' without clarifying what the ID identifies, its form, or its relationship to a share link. The property name 'id' in the schema conveys similar meaning, so the description adds almost nothing 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific share link by ID with full details.' It clearly signals a single-item retrieval rather than listing, creating, or deleting share links, and the 'specific...by ID' phrasing separates it from list_share_links and related list operations.

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 usage context is implied, not stated: an agent can infer to use this when it already knows a share link ID, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_share_links for enumeration or explain when not to use this tool. No exclusions or routing guidance are offered.

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