qr-maker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time scope ('last 30 days') and types of analytics, but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the link_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and efficiently lists key details in a single, well-structured sentence. Every part (verb, resource, metrics, breakdowns, time scope) earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and easy 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 the tool's moderate complexity (analytics retrieval with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the what and scope but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error cases. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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% description coverage, with the 'link_id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('click analytics for a short link'), including details like metrics (total clicks, unique visitors) and breakdowns (by country and day). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_link' (which likely retrieves link metadata) by focusing on analytics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage by specifying the scope ('Covers the last 30 days'), which suggests when to use it for recent data, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_usage' (which might be for broader usage stats) or 'list_links' (for listing links without analytics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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