Check Links

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs network-level checks, detects 404/timeout/connection errors, and returns categorized results with status codes. It does not go into rate limiting or external request volume, but that is partially covered by the delay/concurrency parameters.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the return value is stated immediately after the action.

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 page-level, read-only link checker with fully documented parameters, the description adequately covers scope, purpose, and return output. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of broken/redirected/OK with status codes provides the key information an agent needs.

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 the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter-documentation burden.

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 action ('Check all links') with a clear resource ('a web page') and explicit outcome categories (broken, redirected, OK with status codes). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like extract_links and check_redirect_chain.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to discover broken or misbehaving links on a single page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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