Get a link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by clarifying the scope of returned data (tags, collection, preserved formats) and explicitly stating what is omitted (archived page text). This is sufficient but not extensive beyond the annotation baseline.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The positive statement and the exclusion statement are front-loaded, making it quick to parse.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description completely addresses what the tool returns and what it excludes. The pointer to get_link_content covers the main gap, making it self-sufficient for this simple retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents link_id fully. The description adds value by clarifying that link_id corresponds to the 'id' field from search_links, not title or URL, which is critical for correct usage and not present in the schema description. This goes beyond the schema.

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 fetches one bookmark (specific verb+resource) and enumerates exactly what is included (tags, collection, preserved formats) and what is excluded (archived page text, with pointer to alternative tool). This distinguishes it perfectly from siblings like get_link_content and search_links.

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 explicitly says 'Does not include the archived page text — use get_link_content for that,' providing clear context on when not to use this tool and directing to the correct alternative. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it, but the purpose is clear enough and sibling names reinforce use cases.

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