APIbase

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 discloses the return type ('direct image URL') and external service dependency ('goqr.me'), but lacks information about rate limits, network reliability, error handling behavior, or idempotency characteristics.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence front-loads the action and enumerates customization options efficiently using an em-dash; second sentence clarifies the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 the 100% schema coverage for 7 parameters and the straightforward purpose, the description is functionally complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by stating the return format. A score of 5 would require additional behavioral details like rate limiting or error scenarios.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions, the tool description adds value by conceptually grouping the customizable aspects ('customizable size, color, background, format (PNG/SVG), error correction level') and explicitly noting the format options and error correction feature, reinforcing the schema semantics.

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 explicitly states the core action ('Generate a QR code image URL') and input resource ('from text or URL'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool 'qrserver.qr.read' which likely decodes rather than generates QR codes.

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?

Provides clear context about what the tool produces ('Returns direct image URL') and its customization capabilities, helping agents understand when they need a QR generation service. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling 'qrserver.qr.read' as the alternative for decoding QR codes.

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