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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by listing the link categories and providing a domain-specific caveat: 'Channels that need a phone (WhatsApp QR) are always connected by a person in the dashboard.' This clarifies that the tool only returns links and that actual WhatsApp connection requires human action, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core content (what links are provided) and following with an important caveat. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only links tool, the description covers the scope of links and a notable behavioral nuance. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., URL array vs. object), but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap that does not impede correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no compensation is needed.

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 clearly communicates that the tool provides 'Links for the site owner' and enumerates the specific destinations (dashboard, conversations, connect WhatsApp or Telegram, upgrade the plan). This distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools like oryksa_add_faq and oryksa_customize_chat. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making the action slightly implicit though still unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when the agent needs dashboard-related links for the site owner, but it does not explicitly state conditions or name alternatives. Given that all siblings are actions, an agent can infer this is the correct link/resource tool, but the description provides no direct guidance on when to use it versus others.

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