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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism (same input => same output), no LLM involvement, scope (only <a> hyperlinks), and pricing. It could mention failure modes or rate limits, but overall it provides key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently adds details like determinism, scope, signing, and pricing. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output concept (signed link graph with classifications and counts) and mentions deterministic behavior and pricing. It could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., JSON), but the main functional context is covered.

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% with one parameter (url) described as 'the page to map (http/https)'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the input is a URL. The description's focus on output does not enhance parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 extracts all anchor links from a URL, classifies them as internal/external, groups by origin, and provides histograms and counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it covers only <a> hyperlinks and produces a signed graph, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 implies usage through the feature set but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'extract' or 'fetch'. It mentions limitations (only <a> tags) but lacks guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose.

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