goat_curated

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 that the data is 'credential-free public data,' that the links are currently promoted, and that every link maps to a usable API action. It does not describe response shape or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only endpoint this is reasonably transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence contributes either content, actionability, or access context. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description does enough: it explains what is returned, what categories of links exist, and how those links relate to GET /goat/collection and GET /goat/search. It could add response field details, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The description appropriately omits parameter details, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get GOAT curated links.' It then explains the return value as 'the shelf of editorially curated links GOAT is currently promoting,' which clearly separates this from sibling tools like goat_search or goat_trending_searches.

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 gives clear context: it returns the links GOAT promotes in its own search box and enumerates the content types (seasonal collections, product searches, browse-all entry points). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is unambiguous.

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