get_official_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'canonical' and 'when available', implying some conditional handling, but it does not describe side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or whether it is a safe read operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safeguards.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and the useful qualifier 'when available' without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 description states what is returned (official links for 20-0) and hints at contents (website, support, docs), but lacks an output schema or return format details. For a simple, param-less tool, this is minimally adequate, but richer description of the return structure or use cases 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline holds because there is no parameter semantic gap to address.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('the canonical list of official links for 20-0'), specifying what is returned. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_scenarios' by focusing on official links rather than scenarios, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'list_scenarios' or any conditions for choosing one over the other. There is no implied context beyond the bare statement of functionality.

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