Check public links

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: redirects are reported but not followed, and response bodies are discarded. These are important for understanding how links are checked and align with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concise behavioral constraints. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler.

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 output schema exists, return values don't need description. The description covers limit, redirect handling, and body handling, which are the key operational details an agent needs before invoking. It doesn't mention possible errors or network dependencies, but annotations and schema cover much of that context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not directly explain parameters but reinforces maxLinks ('up to 25') and htmlContent ('supplied HTML'), while baseUrl is left to the schema. No extra value beyond schema, but no gap.

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 checks public HTTP(S) links in supplied HTML, with a precise verb ('checks') and resource ('up to 25 public HTTP(S) links'). It also distinguishes itself by noting redirects are reported but not followed and response bodies are discarded, making its function specific and unambiguous.

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 for link checking in HTML but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention sibling tools like html.url or report.validation, leaving the selection partly to inference.

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