qr-maker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns feature matrix, rate limits, quota, etc., which gives some behavioral context about what information is provided. However, it doesn't disclose response format, error conditions, or whether this affects rate limits itself. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned (feature matrix with specific elements) and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format or structure. It's mostly complete for a simple informational 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full feature matrix for your current API key tier', specifying it shows available features, rate limits, quota, analytics retention, SLA, and upgrade options. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on API capabilities rather than link/template management or generation operations.

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 states 'Call this first to understand what operations are available', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies this tool should be used before other operations to check API limits and features, distinguishing it from siblings that perform specific actions like creating links or templates.

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