check_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches server-side for URLs and returns a structured result including counts and a has_broken flag. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only check, this is appropriate.

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?

The description is concise with two clear sentences: first states purpose, second explains usage. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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 the low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the tool's purpose, input options, and return fields completely. No additional context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: 'url' is live and fetched server-side, 'html' is raw string. However, it does not detail constraints like valid URL schemes or HTML encoding, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states 'Check internal and outbound links for broken HTTP status codes', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_mobile or cta_clarity, which focus on other aspects.

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?

Description provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: 'Pass a live url (fetched server-side) OR a raw html string.' It explains the two input options but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though it's implicit from sibling names.

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