Retrieve a QR code

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description's only verb, 'Retrieve,' frames the call as a harmless read. The description never discloses that the tool creates an exclusive 0600 file on disk, that confirm must be true, or that logo/hide_logo require a paid plan. The read framing actively contradicts the declared write/destructive profile.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is drastically undersized for a 12-parameter file-writing tool. It is concise only in the sense of being minimal, not in the sense of being efficiently complete.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, two required args, and a destructive file write, the description omits every operational detail an agent needs. It conveys the high-level resource but leaves the file/confirm/paid-plan mechanics entirely to the schema and annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters in detail. The description adds nothing about output_file, confirm, logo, size, level, or the deprecated include_margin, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb (retrieve), resource (QR code), and scope (for a link), so the agent can tell what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but there is no competing QR tool in the list, so a 4 is fair rather than 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, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Nothing tells the agent that output_file and confirm are mandatory, or that this should be preferred over any alternative. Usage is only implied by the name.

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