Retrieve a link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond those annotations – no note on lookup behavior when multiple identifiers are given, no indication of what happens on a miss, and no contradiction either.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

Five optional parameters, no output schema, and the description says nothing about how the lookup identifiers relate, what a successful response contains, or what happens when nothing matches. For a retrieval tool with entirely optional parameters, this leaves real ambiguity.

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 100% and the schema itself gives worked examples (d.to/github -> key 'github', domain 'd.to'). With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the description earns the baseline 3 but adds no extra meaning about parameter interaction or precedence.

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 verb (retrieve) and resource (link), but 'the info' is vague about what is returned, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_links or get_link_stats. An agent can guess the general purpose but gets no precision about scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of list_links, get_link_stats, or update_link, and crucially no explanation of which of the five optional lookup identifiers (key/domain, link_id, external_id) to supply or in what combination. This is pure 'no guidance' territory.

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