get_official_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful behavioral context by noting that links are included 'when available', which hints at conditional inclusion. It does not mention side effects or return format, but for a getter with no parameters, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the bare operation.

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 wasted words. It states the action ('Return'), the object ('canonical list'), the scope ('DeepSeek FR'), and the details ('website, support, docs when available') efficiently.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return value and its contents. It covers the types of links and the 'when available' nuance, which is enough for a 0-parameter tool. It could mention error behavior or empty results, but for this simple tool, it is adequately complete.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the output.

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 DeepSeek FR, specifying the types of links (website, support, docs). The verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list of official links' make it distinct from sibling tools like list_models and get_pricing, which have different purposes.

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 makes it clear when to use the tool (when official links are needed), and the siblings are about models and pricing, so the context is evident. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though these are implied by the tool's narrow scope.

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