get_official_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only behavior (return list), which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. No contradictory information; it could mention output format or potential absence of links but is largely transparent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every part is informative.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does. It could specify the output type (e.g., array of strings) but for a canonical list, the format is implied. The sibling tool is listed, providing context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds all necessary meaning by describing what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 returns the canonical list of official links for 17-0, specifying website, support, and docs. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'official links', and the sibling tool 'get_game_rules' has a different purpose, effectively distinguishing them.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, the description's clarity and the sibling tool's distinct name imply appropriate usage. For a simple parameterless tool, this is sufficient but could be improved with explicit context.

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