Get Link In Bio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the full shape of the returned object, the alternate l.ink URL form, and a named error code with its meaning and follow-up actions. It stops short of pagination or auth notes, but that's minor for a read of a single page.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: action and scope first, then returned fields, then the precondition, then error handling. Every clause earns its place, though the field enumeration makes it longer than strictly necessary and slightly list-like.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing the returned fields (url, plan, features, profile, links with ids, socials, appearance, settings) is exactly the compensation needed. Combined with the error semantics and the 'call before editing' workflow, an agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one required `domain` parameter, the schema already does the work. The description's `<domain-with-dashes>.l.ink` detail concerns the returned url rather than the input, so it adds only marginal parameter meaning. Baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Read a domain's Link in Bio page') with an immediate parenthetical explaining what a Link in Bio page is, plus an enumeration of the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_domain or create_link_in_bio by resource scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it before editing' — a concrete precondition tied to the update_link_in_bio_* siblings — and names the exact recovery path on LINKINBIO_NOT_FOUND with both alternatives (create_link_in_bio free, create_hosting with PIXIELINKS sku paid). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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