Get MAX deeplinks for binding

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond those flags by stating idempotency ('Repeated calls before the link is consumed are idempotent — same links are returned') and the confirmation consequence, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call repeatedly.

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?

Three sentences each add distinct information: the return value and link types, the binding consequence after confirmation, and idempotency. No filler words, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the two link variants, the binding flow, and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to clarify. Per the rules, 0 params gives a baseline of 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter information.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a pair of deeplinks: link_user and link_group') with clear definitions of each. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on generating binding deeplinks, while siblings like max_linked_list or max_unlink handle listing or removing bindings.

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?

Provides clear context that the deeplinks are for binding MAX as a notifications channel ('After confirmation, the MAX chat/account becomes available as a notifications channel'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., max_linked_list for existing bindings), so it stops short of full guidance.

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