get_official_links

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It transparently states the tool returns canonical official links and specifies their types (website, support, docs when available). This is sufficient for a simple read-only tool, though it does not mention potential limitations or authentication needs.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Return') and includes specific details about the content.

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 enough context: it specifies the return value (canonical list of official links) and scope (for Banned from Equestria). It lacks details on whether the list is dynamic or static, but it is largely complete for a simple tool.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. According to the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate because 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 clearly states the tool returns the canonical list of official links for a specific game (Banned from Equestria), specifying the types of links (website, support, docs). It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_game_rules by focusing on links rather than rules.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_game_rules. Usage is implied by the description, but the absence of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions leaves room for ambiguity.

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