Get the wanderlog.com URL for a trip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose security-relevant behavior — 'view' is read-only and 'safe to share with anyone', while 'edit' is full-permission — which is genuinely useful. It omits auth requirements, link permanence, and whether links can be revoked, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation 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 purpose, then a compact, readable bulleted breakdown of the three modes and a fallback rule. Slightly redundant with the schema enum descriptions, but the structure is efficient.

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 two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, every mode's meaning, and a default policy. Remaining unknowns — link lifetime or revocation and auth context — are minor for this operation.

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 100%, so the mode enum and its values are already documented in the input schema, and the description largely repeats that. It adds only the tie-breaking default hint, which is already present as the schema default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the wanderlog.com URL for a trip', plus the intent ('so the user can open it in a browser'). That clearly separates it from data-returning siblings such as wanderlog_get_trip.

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 explicit direction on choosing a mode, including a default instruction ('If you don't know which mode the user wants, default to edit'). It does not, however, say when to call this versus a sibling like wanderlog_get_trip, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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