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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Return') and adds the caveat that docs are included 'when available,' which is useful. However, it does not detail the exact return format or any potential limitations (e.g., if links are missing). The core behavior is transparent enough for a simple tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information immediately.

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 (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a sufficient overview of what the tool returns. It could be more explicit about the exact structure of the links, but for typical use cases, the description is adequate.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema shows. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical list of official links for Gemini 3 Online'), and even specifies the categories of links (website, support, docs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The intended usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but the description does not provide context such as 'Use this when you need official URLs' or 'For pricing, use get_pricing.' Thus it meets the criterion for implied usage but lacks clear guidance.

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