getWatchtowerLinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-picks the issue, returns machine-readable dates and isCurrentWeek, and that wolUrl resolution costs an extra request. It does not disclose the exact return format (e.g., array vs object) but provides sufficient behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary context about publication timing and output fields. While slightly verbose (around 100 words), every sentence adds useful information; the example about July 2026/May 2026 is helpful, not fluff.

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?

The description covers the key output (weekStart/weekEnd, isCurrentWeek, wolUrl) and the automatic issue selection, which is essential for correct use. It does not fully detail the return structure or error/edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it emphasizes that no parameters are needed for the current week and explains the issue date offset, which is already in the schema. No additional value beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'STEP 1: Get JW.org Watchtower study articles,' which clearly states the verb (get), resource (Watchtower study articles), and scope (JW.org). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like getWatchtowerContent by focusing on articles and their associated links/metadata, not content.

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 explicitly says to use this tool FIRST for current/this week's Watchtower content and without parameters, explaining the auto-selection logic. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, though the sibling names imply content retrieval would follow this step.

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