get_official_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'when available' for docs, indicating possible variability, but does not disclose other behaviors like caching, latency, or data freshness. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word is necessary with no redundancy. It is a model of brevity.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose. It mentions the types of links and the variability of docs. However, it could be slightly improved by hinting at the return format or purpose of having the canonical list.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but none is needed. It effectively describes the output but not the return structure.

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 'Return the canonical list of official links for LessonLab (website, support, docs when available).' It specifies the verb 'Return', the resource 'official links for LessonLab', and the types of links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lesson_workflow and get_pricing, which serve 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when not to use it or comparing with siblings. For a simple tool, this lack of usage context lowers the score.

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