get_v1_share_by_code

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 includes a decoded example showing the output format (pk and type), which gives insight into the result. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, though the GET method and context imply safety.

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 short, consisting of two sentences and an example. It is efficient, though the HTTP path notation is somewhat extraneous. The key information 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides an example output. It explains the parameter with a concrete example, specifies scope (stories/highlights only), and suggests alternatives. For a simple lookup tool, this is sufficiently complete. Missing are potential error scenarios or more detailed output structure, but the example covers the essentials.

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 schema has no description for the 'code' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining that the code is a base64-like string and showing an example of its decoded form ('aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE4MTQ2MjE2Njk4MDIyMTc0' -> pk and type). This helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a share object by code, specifies it works only for stories and highlights, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing alternatives like get_v1_media_by_url. However, the inclusion of the HTTP path in brackets adds noise.

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?

Explicitly states the tool should only be used for stories and highlights and provides alternative tools for media and story by URL, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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