Check any deep link

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

Adds real operational context beyond annotations: the input is restricted to public https links, no authentication key is required, and there is a rate limit of a few checks per minute per network. It also describes what the response covers (destination on Android/iPhone/desktop, liveness, remediation advice). The opening 'Read-only' only restates readOnlyHint, but the rate-limit and visibility constraints are the valuable additions.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core capability front-loaded and usage guidance second. The vendor enumeration in sentence one makes it long but each item is load-bearing; minor redundancy in 'Read-only' versus annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what the check reports across platforms plus remediation guidance. Combined with the auth and rate-limit notes, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint the schema does not express: only public https links are accepted, which tells the agent to reject http, private, or internal URLs before calling.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('checks any deep link') and enumerates the vendor formats it accepts (Firebase page.link, Branch app.link, Strait link, plain URL). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_link, check_app_links, simulate_tap, and trace_tap, which check or simulate rather than diagnose an arbitrary external link.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering situations ('before migrating links' and 'when an old link stopped working'), which is stronger than generic context. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as check_app_links or trace_tap, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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