get_link_charts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read, but it does not disclose authentication needs, return format, time-range behavior, or what happens when more than 20 link IDs are requested beyond the schema constraint.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the "up to 20" clause largely repeats the schema's maxItems constraint rather than adding explanatory value.

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 tool with four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It identifies the data type and a link cap but leaves date range semantics, timezone handling, and response shape entirely unexplained.

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 explain the four parameters, but it only mentions the 20-link limit already expressed by maxItems. It adds no meaning for startAt, endAt, or timezone, leaving their units and formats undocumented.

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 a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("chart data") scoped to tracked links, making the basic action clear. It distinguishes itself from website/pixel chart siblings by specifying "tracked links," though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_pixel_charts, get_link, or list_links. It implies chart retrieval for links but provides no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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