page_links

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the 60s cache share with fetch_page, meaning calling both costs one page render. This is genuinely useful operational context. It also documents the pattern matching behavior (case-insensitive regex on text OR href). However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, auth needs, or what happens when max_links is exceeded.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. Each sentence adds value: format+ordering, use-case guidance, concrete pattern example, and caching behavior. The pattern example is inline and efficient. Front-loaded with the core behavior, then supporting details.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does substantial lifting. It specifies output format, ordering, caching behavior, and a concrete pattern example. For a link-listing tool this is fairly complete. Minor gaps (max_links semantics, private parameter purpose) but the tool's behavior is well-specified for an agent to reason about correct usage.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the 4 parameters. It does explain 'pattern' in detail with a concrete example (pattern="item\?id=" for HN comment pages) and documents text OR href filtering. But 'max_links', 'private', and 'url' are not explained beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema has defaults but the description only partially supplements the parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource+behavior: 'List a page's links as [{text, href}, ...] in document order.' The mention of document order and the structured output format clearly distinguishes this from the fetch_page sibling, which would return full markdown. It also explains the value proposition ('Cheaper to reason over...').

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 contrasts with fetch_page by explaining when to prefer links vs full markdown ('Cheaper to reason over... when deciding where to navigate next'). It shares a capture with fetch_page so an agent understands a caching relationship, which is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need page content beyond links) or name alternatives like search_web.

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