find_link

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

The description reveals that tracking parameters are stripped before checking, which is a key behavioral detail beyond a simple lookup. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authorization needs, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and a key behavior. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 simple existence-check tool with one parameter an output schema (which likely describes the match format), the description is complete. It covers the input handling (stripping params) and the return outcome (matches or '(none)'), satisfying contextual needs.

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?

The single parameter 'url' is explained in the description as the URL to check, with the important nuance that tracking params are stripped. This adds meaning beyond the schema (which only defines the parameter as a string) and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's purpose: to check whether a URL already exists, with tracking parameters stripped. The verb 'Check' and resource 'URL' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_link (which adds) and list_links (which lists all) by focusing on existence verification.

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 implicitly indicates usage for verifying URL existence, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_links for retrieval or add_link for modification). It lacks when-not-to-use or context for decision-making.

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