Map Website URLs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world nature. The description adds useful behavioral details: the credit cost (1 credit), the parsing scope (single page), and the exclusion of full-page content fetching. This goes beyond the annotation signals.

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 deliver the core purpose, cost, fallback, and a key exclusion. 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?

For a simple link-extraction tool with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, cost, fallback, and a key limitation. While no output format is specified, the return is implicitly a list of links from the 'discover' wording. It's adequate for an agent to decide and invoke.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters (url, limit, search) with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only hinting at the page context. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the tool's function: discovering same-origin links by parsing HTML anchors on a single page. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like metalift_scrape or metalift_crawl, and the fallback note references metalift_sitemap explicitly.

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 identifies a conditional usage scenario: 'Fallback when metalift_sitemap is unavailable.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Does not fetch full page content'), which guides when not to use it.

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