check_links

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions credits and API key but lacks details on how links are checked (e.g., depth, follow redirects), rate limits, or error handling. Major behavioral aspects are undisclosed.

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?

Very concise: two core sentences plus a line about credits. No redundant words, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Output schema exists to explain return values. Description covers auth and cost but lacks info on scope (e.g., max links, timeouts, redirect following). Adequate for a simple tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must add value. It implies 'url' is the page to check, but provides no additional format, constraints, or examples 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks all links on a page for broken/redirect status. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like analyze_url_structure or audit_sitemap.

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?

Mentions credits cost and API key requirement, and suggests using get_account_info for balance check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like onpage_analysis or crawl_website that may also check links.

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