Get band links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The phrase 'by section' adds a small structural hint about how results are grouped, but there is no detail on partial results, link availability, or failure modes. Adds modest value over the structured fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the example link types, and the result grouping with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and a fully-documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is guidance on when to prefer it over sibling band tools, plus any note about missing/absent links.

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% and the single band_id parameter is well documented in the schema itself ('Metal Archives band id (from search_bands)'). The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered single-param schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (external links for a band) and enumerates the link categories returned (official site, Bandcamp, Spotify, socials, merch), which tells an agent exactly what payload to expect. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_band or get_band_bio, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names no conditions for use, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With ~20 sibling band tools available, an agent gets no help deciding when get_band_links is the right call versus get_band or get_band_bio.

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