to_site_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool builds a URL, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects occur (if any), authentication requirements, or how the URL is structured. The mention of 'adjusting a character' is vague and doesn't clarify behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It avoids unnecessary details and is appropriately sized for a tool of this nature, though slightly more context could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (building a URL from items), the lack of annotations, and the 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value (even though an output schema exists, the description should clarify the URL's purpose), and leaves critical details about parameters and behavior unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely refers to 'esses itens' ('these items'), providing no meaning for the 'items' array or the 'body_type' parameter. The schema has no descriptions, so the description fails to add any semantic clarity for either parameter.

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 states a verb ('Monta'/'Builds') and resource ('link do site'/'site URL'), making the general purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like 'from_site_url' or explain what the URL represents. In Portuguese, it conveys assembling a URL from items to adjust a character in the browser, which is clear but not specific enough to differentiate from other tools.

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 implies usage ('para abrir e ajustar o personagem no navegador'/'to open and adjust the character in the browser') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'from_site_url'. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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