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, hinting at conditional availability, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response behavior. For a simple read tool, more context (e.g., that links are static) would help.

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 of 17 words with no fluff. Every word adds value, specifying the return type and examples.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and examples. However, it could specify the format or that the list is static, which would improve completeness.

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 baseline 4 is appropriate as per rules. The description does not need to add parameter info since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 a 'canonical list of official links' for Meigen AI, with examples (website, support, docs). It uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list', distinguishing it from sibling tools list_styles and get_pricing.

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 when official links are needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings have distinct purposes, so confusion is minimal.

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