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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying 'since previous crawl', indicating dependence on crawl history. The '(v1 stub)' note alerts to potential incompleteness. However, it does not disclose return format or further behavioral nuances, though annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive).

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. The parenthetical '(v1 stub)' is slightly cryptic but does not detract significantly from clarity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter explanation, and any hint about return values. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description coverage, which is not met.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'domain' parameter. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving the agent to guess the expected format or semantics.

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 retrieves 'links lost since previous crawl' with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_new_links (new links) by focusing on 'lost' links. However, the '(v1 stub)' note adds ambiguity about the tool's maturity but not about its purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_new_links or get_crawl_history. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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