getWorkbookLinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the automatic current month/year behavior and RTF format focus, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior for the returned list of weeks.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'STEP 1' framing and automatic behavior explanation are useful. However, the phrasing could be slightly more concise by integrating the RTF and automatic behavior into the main purpose statement rather than as separate sentences.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about when to use it and the automatic behavior. However, it doesn't describe the structure of returned data (beyond mentioning titles and URLs) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps for an agent to understand the complete tool behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'RTF download URLs' which aligns with the fileformat parameter, and 'current month/year' which relates to the issue parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get JW.org "Our Christian Life and Ministry" (CLM) meeting workbook weeks' and specifies it returns weekly titles with RTF download URLs. It distinguishes from sibling 'getWorkbookContent' by indicating this tool shows available weeks first, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other workbook-related tools like 'getWatchtowerLinks'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'When a user asks for CLM workbook content, use this tool FIRST to show them available weeks.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getWorkbookContent' for actual content, and specifies the automatic current month/year behavior.

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