Get Links

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: hrefs are 'resolved' (not raw), and the unique flag collapses repeats and reports how many were dropped, explaining a non-obvious mutation of the output.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the conditional flag behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and complete parameter descriptions, the description is nearly sufficient. It notes the returned fields, so the absence of an output schema is not a problem, though a word on ordering/pagination would round it out.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds motivation for the unique parameter (bulk repeats in navigation/footers) that the schema's terse description does not convey, nudging it just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List links on the page') plus the returned fields ('text and resolved href'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like query_elements or get_page_content, which also surface page data.

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 set unique ('which navigation and footers produce in bulk'), giving useful implied guidance, and the schema's tab_id note covers the fallback gotcha. But it never states when to prefer this tool over query_elements/get_html, nor any explicit exclusions.

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