get_links

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that output is JSON with four named fields. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether fields can be null/absent, or rate limiting, though the read-only, zero-parameter nature of the tool keeps the risk low.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates the payload. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description needn't explain return values further, so the remaining requirement is minimal. The '(JSON)' note and field list are slightly redundant with the output schema, but overall the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The enumerated field list does help set expectations about the returned link categories.

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?

A specific verb ('Return') plus a specific resource ('contact links') with the returned fields enumerated (GitHub, LinkedIn, website, email). It is clearly distinguishable from the publication siblings, though it never contrasts with get_profile, which could plausibly also surface links.

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 is only implied by the returned content — an agent infers it should call this when it needs contact/social URLs. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_profile, and no conditions or prerequisites are given.

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