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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral constraints: it does not fetch base_url, follow redirects, or retain response bodies. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies important side-effect boundaries.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose ('Use this for...') and includes the key scope and limitations. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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, combined with rich annotations and a full output schema, covers the tool's purpose, limits, and exclusions. It is slightly incomplete on when to prefer this over sibling tools, but that is a usage-guidelines gap rather than a contextual gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents html, base_url, and max_links. The description adds minimal extra value by restating behavior around base_url and the 20-link limit, but it does not introduce new parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool performs a focused check of up to 20 public HTTP(S) links found in supplied HTML. The verb 'check' and the specific resource (public links) distinguish it from sibling tools like audit_public_site or validate_html.

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 'Use this for a focused check...' giving clear context for when to use the tool. It also mentions what it does not do (fetch base_url, follow redirects, retain response bodies), which helps rule out inappropriate use, though it does not name alternative tools.

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