get_explorer_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful note that saved wallet names are accepted (which the schema also mentions), but it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether it makes external calls, what it returns, or how it handles missing parameters. The read-only nature is implicit from 'get', but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a minor detail about wallet name acceptance. No filler words or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameter details. However, with no output schema, the description does not hint at the return format or structure beyond 'links'. It also does not clarify behavior when both parameters are omitted or both are provided, which could be ambiguous. Overall, it is minimally complete but leaves some usage details unspecified.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, covering the 'saved wallet name' option in the address field. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get links') and resource ('Qubic block explorers'), and specifies the two input types ('address or transaction ID'). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on explorer links, which none of the siblings explicitly provide.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: use when you need explorer links for an address or transaction. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the purpose is straightforward enough that the intended use is clear.

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