get_archived_publication_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only notes that results are 'grouped by type'; it says nothing about what 'archived' means versus live publications, permission/auth requirements, pagination, or the read-only nature of the call.

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 front-loaded pipe-separated keyword list plus an Args/Returns block restates the same information multiple times, and the 'Returns' line duplicates what the output schema already conveys. It is readable but not waste-free.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, and the tool takes only one parameter. However, with no annotations and no guidance on the archived-vs-current distinction or the committee_id source, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 0% and the description only repeats 'committee_id: Committee ID.' — a tautology that adds no format, source, or lookup guidance. With a single required parameter and no schema documentation, the description 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 ('Get'), resource ('archived publication links') and scope ('for a committee'), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like get_publications. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with get_publications or get_committee_publications_summary, leaving the boundary inferred.

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 phrase 'Use to find archived publications linked to a committee' gives implied usage context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_publications or other committee publication tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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