Create a short link

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

The annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the 'or return the one it already has' path clarifies idempotency semantics, the failure mode when no shortener exists is disclosed, and the side effect on the upload's formats is noted. Only the returned payload's exact shape remains unstated, which is minor for a one-parameter 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?

Three compact sentences: what it does, the idempotent branch, then the failure condition. The key action is front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the input's source, both success branches (newly created vs. already existing), the effect on the upload's formats, and the failure case. Nothing needed to call it correctly is omitted.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, which sits at baseline. The description reinforces the origin of that ID ('from search_uploads'), but the schema already documents it, so it contributes little new semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it creates a short link for an upload, resolving through that upload's destination link shortener, and returns an existing short link if one is already present. The behavior is distinct from a temporary-link tool because it ties creation to the destination's configured shortener, but no sibling tool is named, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 states the prerequisite input source ('an upload from search_uploads') and a clear failure condition ('Fails if the destination has no link shortener set up'), which lets an agent judge when to invoke it. It does not name the alternative tool to use when a temporary link is wanted instead, leaving that choice partly to inference.

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