linkminer_favorite_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'See' which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no value beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose effectively and wastes zero characters.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like or what actions are involved. It only states 'See one LinkMiner favorite link,' which is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior or how to handle the response. The nested 'body'/'query' properties add complexity that is not addressed.

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%, with 'link_id' described as 'LinkMiner link ID' and generic 'body'/'query' parameters. The description mentions no parameters and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'See one LinkMiner favorite link' uses a specific verb ('see') and resource ('LinkMiner favorite link'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'linkminer_favorites' (list) and 'linkminer_delete_favorite' (delete). The word 'one' indicates single-item detail retrieval, which is unambiguous.

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 for retrieving a single favorite link but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'linkminer_favorites' or 'linkminer_delete_favorite'. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, so usage context is only inferred from the name and description.

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