Get Profile URL (legacy)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one important trait: it never fetches the URL, avoiding a costly side effect. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or how the alias differs functionally from its replacement, so it is only partially transparent for an unannotated 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 short sentences, deprecation status front-loaded, followed by the routing guidance and the one behavioral note. No wasted words.

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?

Return shape is covered ('URL only'), but with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves the parameter meanings and any auth/error characteristics undocumented. Adequate for a deprecated alias, but not 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 description coverage is 0% and neither 'id' nor 'from' is explained in the description. Since the schema provides no semantics, the description should compensate and does not, leaving the meaning of 'from' entirely unclear.

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 names the exact resource and behavior ('alias of get_candidate_link') and explicitly states what it returns ('the URL only'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_candidate_link by framing itself as the deprecated alias, so an agent can tell them apart without reading schemas.

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 an explicit routing instruction: 'Prefer get_candidate_link,' and scopes its own use to 'older configs.' That is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement naming the alternative.

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