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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the categories of links returned, though it says nothing about whether these are static/canonical URLs or locale-dependent.

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; the resource enumeration is the only content and every element earns its place. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema to describe the return structure, the definition carries all the burden it needs to. An agent can invoke it correctly with no further information.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics gap exists.

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 specific verb ("Return") and a concrete resource (official website, download, help, privacy, and terms links), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the informational sibling how_qrrier_works, leaving a small ambiguity about links vs. explanatory content.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for pointing users at official Qrrier resources. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion relative to alternatives, but for a zero-parameter static link tool the implied context is largely sufficient.

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