Link extractor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the per-call cost and payment token, and describes the transformation behavior and output fields. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, which are meaningful gaps for a paid external-fetching tool.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: output shape, use cases, and cost. The description is front-loaded with the most important detail and contains 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and two of three parameters are undocumented. The description omits limit/scope semantics, response envelope, and edge-case behavior, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the result of a call. The cost and output-feature details are valuable, but not sufficient for complete invocation confidence.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for limit and scope being undocumented. 'Split into internal and external' loosely hints at scope, but it does not explain scope values, defaults, or the meaning of limit. The description therefore fails to close the parameter documentation 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 specifies what the tool returns—every link, absolute, deduplicated, internal/external split, anchor text, rel attributes, and per-host counts—which unambiguously identifies this as a link-extraction tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like farm_metadata and farm_clean_text. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'extracts', but the meaning is unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to crawl, to map a site, or to find outbound references.' This gives an agent concrete use-case signals for selecting it. It does not mention alternative tools or provide negative guidance, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use coverage.

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