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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful operational context: it says the tool returns anchor text, classifies internal vs external links, and normalizes URLs, which tells an agent what to expect from the call.

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?

One focused sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by three concrete output details. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and no unnecessary clauses.

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?

Because the schema covers all parameters with defaults and enums, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is almost sufficient. It loses one point because it doesn't orient the agent among the six sibling tools, so a caller must infer which extraction tool is appropriate.

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% and every parameter has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond saying the resulting URLs are normalized, but the schema already documents all five parameters including enums and credits.

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 names a specific verb and resource—'Extract all links from a webpage'—and enumerates the output: anchor text, internal/external classification, and normalized URLs. It is clearly about link extraction, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named tooltrace_extract sibling.

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 when to use it (when a caller needs page links and their metadata) but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools like tooltrace_extract and tooltrace_seo_audit.

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