Get instant url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context with 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply' and 'Current Bannerbear V5 operation', hinting at credential scoping, locking and version currency, but it never explains what those locks or credits mean for a read call.

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 compact fragments with the endpoint front-loaded, so the essential fact is read first. The middle clause about scopes, locks and credits is generic boilerplate that borders on filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries no return-shape burden, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, it leaves an agent unclear on what an instant URL object is, what identifiers are valid, or what failure modes (missing uid, wrong workspace profile) to expect.

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 description coverage is 50%: the account parameter is documented in the schema while uid is not. The only parameter signal in the description is the {uid} path placeholder, which confirms uid identifies the resource but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema pattern. This warrants the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb (GET) and resource path (/v5/instant_urls/{uid}), which reads clearly as a single-resource retrieval and is distinguishable from list_instant_urls, create_instant_url, update_instant_url and delete_instant_url. It never states in plain language what an 'instant URL' is or what is returned, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer from the REST path and the singular uid that this fetches one existing instant URL rather than listing or mutating them.

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