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 disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool returns a canonical list, implying a read-only operation and disclosing that some links may only be present 'when available'. For a simple getter with no side effects, this is adequate behavioral transparency, though it does not detail return structure or error behavior.

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. Every word contributes: 'canonical' clarifies the authoritative nature, the product name disambiguates, and 'when available' adds a necessary caveat. No redundancy.

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 alone must define the tool's behavior. It fully specifies that the output is a list of official links for the product, including the categories of links. This is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output context, but there are no parameter semantics to elaborate on.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the exact resource: the canonical list of official links for Video to Audio Converter. It enumerates the types of links (website, support, docs) and adds the 'when available' caveat, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling get_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 the tool should be used when official links are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_local_setup or provide exclusions. The guidance is present but only through inference from the tool name and resource description.

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