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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the shape of the result (anchor text, rel, nofollow flag, classification), which goes beyond the annotations. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or page-size limits, so it is a modest but real addition.

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?

Three overlapping clauses restate the same idea: the title, then 'Extract links.', then 'Extract every link of a web page...'. The redundancy crowds out the one genuinely useful sentence, and 'Filter by type' is tacked on as an orphan fragment.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating the emitted fields (anchor text, rel, nofollow, internal/external). Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though filtering behavior remains thin.

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 both url and type are already documented in the schema, and the description contributes only the notion that 'type' filters internal/external results. No format, default, or edge-case semantics are added 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?

Specific verb+resource: extracting every link from a page, with the exact fields returned (anchor text, rel, nofollow, internal/external). It is distinguishable from siblings like extract_html_tables or extract_keywords by naming the resource as links. However, it never contrasts itself with link_preview or sitemap_urls, which occupy adjacent territory.

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 only usage instruction is the fragment 'Filter by type,' which restates the optional parameter rather than saying when to choose internal vs external or when to prefer this tool over link_preview/sitemap_urls. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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