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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses substantial behavioral traits: the 1,000-row cap per table, that results are a sample rather than a full list, that subdomains are merged in top linking sites, and that missing anchor text appears as (empty). It also flags the API key/access prerequisite.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then layers qualifiers per table without redundancy. Every sentence (row limit, sampling, anchor handling, auth) carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content and it does so thoroughly — what the tables contain, their size limits, and sampling caveats. Property formatting is covered by the schema, so nothing material is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning to the `table` enum values — subdomain merging, external-only case-insensitive matching, and (empty) anchor handling — going beyond the bare enum list.

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 (get) and resource (the Links report) and enumerates the four tables it can return, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_performance_stats or inspect_url. An agent can tell exactly what data this yields without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when each table selection applies (e.g. top linking text is external-only, top linking sites merges subdomains), so an agent knows which `table` value fits a given question. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions relative to siblings.

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