resolve

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

The description uses '[read]' to indicate a read-only operation, and explicitly states 'NOT downloading' and 'analyze a link... WITHOUT downloading.' This provides behavioral clarity about the tool being non-destructive. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it does so well but could add details like whether it requires authentication or has rate limits.

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, zero filler. The first sentence defines purpose and behavior; the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (1 required param, no enums, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose, read-only behavior, and relationship to siblings. It lacks mention of what the output schema contains, but since an output schema exists, the agent can infer return structure. Could justify a 5 as complete for a simple tool, but 4 acknowledges minor gaps like authentication preconditions.

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 description says 'analyze a link' which implicitly tells the agent that the single parameter 'url' is a link to analyze. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, which only defines 'url' as a string. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well, though it could be more explicit about the expected URL format (e.g., HTTP/HTTPS, supported domains).

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 analyzes a link and lists available media items and qualities without downloading. The verb 'analyze' and noun 'link' are specific, and the description differentiates it from 'download' by explicitly noting it does NOT download. However, it could be more precise about what 'media items' means (e.g., video/audio tracks, formats).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'preview what a URL contains before calling download.' It provides a clear exclusion: 'WITHOUT downloading.' The last sentence directly advises the agent to use this tool before the 'download' sibling, giving strong usage guidance.

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