get-link-by-url

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return value looks like, or any error behavior. The only behavioral addition is the URL format support, which is minimal.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every clause provides necessary information.

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 simple lookup tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose and URL format limitations. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, this is an acceptable gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two accepted URL formats, giving more meaning to the 'url' parameter beyond the schema's generic description. No info on project_id, but schema covers it.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a Limelink dynamic link by its full URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-link-by-suffix (lookup by suffix) and create-link (creation).

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 useful context by listing the supported URL formats (Free and Pro), which helps users understand when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a differentiated tool.

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