direct_list_sitelinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'READ:' and the API requirement for Ids, which is non-obvious. It doesn't mention return format or pagination, but for a list tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'READ', no filler. Each part adds meaning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: identifies the API method, the required argument pathways, and the read-only nature. Slightly vague on how campaign_ids discover IDs, but 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 coverage is only 25%, and the description compensates by explaining the relationship between sitelink_set_ids and campaign_ids/project: one is the direct ID list, the other serves to discover IDs. It clarifies that IDs are mandatory. The 'limit' parameter is not covered, but the schema's type/range is self-explanatory.

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 uses 'READ: sitelinks.get' which clearly indicates a read operation for sitelinks, distinguishing it from mutation tools like direct_add_sitelinks. It also specifies two methods of identification (sitelink_set_ids or project/campaign_ids), making the purpose concrete.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: either supply sitelink_set_ids directly or use project/campaign_ids to discover them. The note 'API requires Ids' tells the agent that at least one of these must be provided. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the name and READ prefix already differentiate.

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