Get shared link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and "Read-only" merely restates that. The description does add useful substance about what the caller sees (permissions, expiry, associated assets/album) but says nothing about access requirements or behavior for a missing/invalid link_id, which matters for a lookup tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a usage sentence and compact Args/Returns blocks. The formatting is slightly ceremonial for a single parameter, but no sentence is wasteful.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup this covers purpose, provenance of the ID, and the shape of the result, so an agent can call it correctly. The Returns line is partly redundant given an output schema exists, and error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, keeping it just below 5.

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 0%, so the lone parameter is undocumented in structured data; the description compensates by identifying link_id as a UUID and naming list_shared_links as where to obtain it. That is meaningful guidance beyond the bare string type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get full details of a shared link") plus the fields returned (permissions, expiry, linked assets), which clearly separates it from list_shared_links, create_shared_link, update_shared_link, and delete_shared_link in the sibling set.

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?

"Use this to inspect a specific link's configuration" gives clear context, and pointing to list_shared_links as the source of link_id implies the list-then-get workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., use update_shared_link to change settings), so not a 5.

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