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. It offers some transparency by noting the list is 'canonical' and that docs are included 'when available', hinting at conditional availability. However, it does not describe return format (e.g., array vs. object) or any potential errors, leaving some gaps.

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 the verb, resource, and scope without any wasted words. It achieves high clarity in minimal space, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the exact data returned and includes a caveat about doc availability. A more detailed return type might improve completeness, but for a simple list retrieval, this is 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description's only job is to clarify the tool's purpose, which it does. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 function: 'Return the canonical list of official links for EarScribe (website, support, docs when available).' The verb 'Return' with the resource 'canonical list of official links' is specific and distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'get_local_setup' by focusing on external official resources rather than local setup.

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 context (when one needs official links for EarScribe) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_local_setup'. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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