get_official_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a simple statement by noting 'when available,' which clarifies behavior when certain links (e.g., docs) are missing. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure for a zero-parameter, read-only 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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action, the object, and the relevant qualifier ('when available') in an efficient, readable manner.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies what will be returned (a list of links) and the categories included (website, support, docs). It is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, though it could optionally mention the exact data structure (e.g., list of strings).

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, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning. The input schema is empty, and the description adds no param-specific detail, which is appropriate. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 WordCast (website, support, docs when available).' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('canonical list of official links'), and scopes it to 'WordCast', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_voices'.

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 use case: it is the go-to tool for obtaining official WordCast links. While it does not explicitly name the sibling tool or state when not to use it, the context is clear and unambiguous; the sibling 'list_voices' is thematically unrelated, so no conflict arises.

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