get_official_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. The term "canonical" conveys authority and the phrase "when available" adds nuance about conditional data. The read-only nature is implied by "Return," and there are no side effects to disclose. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate.

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 that states exactly what the tool does. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource (82-0 Dream) and the link types. It could be slightly more explicit about the return structure (e.g., an array of URL/name pairs), but the simplicity of the tool makes the description 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?

Zero parameters exist, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description adds no parameter semantics, but there are none to describe.

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 a specific verb ("Return") with a clear resource ("canonical list of official links for 82-0 Dream"), and the parenthetical clarifies the link types. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool list_scenarios by focusing on links rather than scenarios.

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 implies usage (when you need official links) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_scenarios, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicitly tied to a decision framework.

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