qr-maker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as a read-only retrieval operation (implied by 'Retrieve'), specifies the return data (title, URL, HTML, etc.), and mentions dependencies (ID from 'publish_landing'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are minor 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter context in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It could be more complete by detailing the exact return structure or error cases, but it provides sufficient context for effective use in most scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'landing_id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's origin ('returned by publish_landing') and its role in identifying a published page, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 specific action ('Retrieve full details'), resource ('published micro-landing page'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for retrieving by ID rather than listing, publishing, or updating. It explicitly mentions what it returns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to verify publication, retrieve the public URL for sharing or QR codes, or inspect content before updating. It also references the sibling tool 'update_landing' as an alternative for modifications and 'publish_landing' as the source of the ID, clearly differentiating use cases.

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