Get Click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (landing page, referring URL, campaign, device, SubId) and implies the existence-check behavior via 'confirm a specific click was recorded.' It does not cover errors or authentication, but for a simple read operation, it provides meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description adequately explains what it does, what it returns, and a primary use case. It lacks explicit error behavior, but for this simple get-by-id operation, it is reasonably complete.

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% and the parameter has a clear description ('The click id (irclickid / im_ref)'). The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single click') with a clear identifier (irclickid / im_ref). It lists the returned fields (landing page, referring URL, campaign, device, SubId), making it distinct from sibling tools like export_clicks or get_action.

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 provides a clear context: 'Use to confirm a specific click was recorded.' This gives a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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