List Outcome Group Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the operation is listing links in a context. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the result includes nested links, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could have added a bit more context about the return shape or usage without becoming verbose.

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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what an 'outcome link' is, whether the result is paginated, or how it relates to sibling outcome tools. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the context scope. Baseline 3 is correct when the 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outcome links') with a context scope ('account or course context'). It is clear about what it does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_outcome_groups or list_outcome_group_outcomes. The title reinforces the same, but the description is sufficient for basic purpose identification.

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 context by mentioning 'account or course context', and the schema's required parameters clarify the two contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_outcome_groups, list_outcome_group_outcomes, or get_root_outcome_group. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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