Link Audit

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses a specific behavioral trait: 'retrying with GET when a server rejects HEAD' for broken-link verification, and notes that verification is a sample. This adds meaningful context about the tool's operational behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 well-organized: a concise opening sentence, a bullet-like list of arguments, a return structure overview, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place, and the text is scannable without being verbose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, return structure, and a usage example, all within a moderate length. Combined with the detailed input schema and output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even for complex queries.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with types, defaults, and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description's Args section largely duplicates this, only adding an example mapping. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 with a specific verb and resource ('Audit a page's outbound links') and enumerates the exact link characteristics analyzed (internal/external split, rel attributes, anchor text issues, external domain distribution). This distinguishes it from the broader sibling tools like seo_audit and content_analysis.

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, including a concrete example for broken-link checking. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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