get_service_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: no login/authentication is required. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what happens with an empty query, so it stays at a baseline-plus level.

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 short sentence with the resource and the key constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is borderline under-specified rather than padded, so it earns high marks for economy but not perfection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition omits all parameter semantics and any usage context for a 3-parameter query tool. An agent knows what the tool is for but not how to call it well or when to prefer it.

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?

All three parameters (limit, query, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. It gives no hint about search syntax, pagination defaults, or how limit/offset interact, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource (查询...服务入口) plus a scope qualifier (公开, 不需要登录), so an agent knows it retrieves public school service links. It does not differentiate itself explicitly from siblings like get_course_resources or get_capabilities, which is the only thing keeping it from 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 guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any alternative sibling tool. The '不需要登录' phrase implies it is safe to call without auth but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over the other 15 siblings.

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