Extract Links

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description earns credit for disclosing what the operation returns (anchor text, URL, rel attributes, and nofollow status) and the filtering behavior. It does not detail edge cases like redirect handling, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 filler: the first sentence names the operation and resource, the second covers filtering and return payloads. Every clause adds information, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names inputs, filter options, and return fields. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already explains both parameters fully. The description's 'Can filter by internal, external, or all links' paraphrases the type enum without adding new meaning, and it offers no additional semantics for the url parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource phrase — 'Extract all links from a web page' — which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_page, crawl_site, and extract_content. It also specifies the three filter modes and the exact return fields (anchor text, URL, rel attributes, nofollow status), making the tool's scope 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 conveys the clear context for use: when you need links from a single page and want to filter them by type. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or say which other tools to use for site-wide link analysis (e.g., crawl_site, check_links), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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