recheck_live_links

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether tracker entries are mutated by the flagging, whether results are persisted or just reported, how many network requests a batch implies, or whether it can be slow or rate-limited for a site with many live entries.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the 'live' qualifier and the outcome clause. No filler, no redundancy, and the important constraint appears first.

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 batch re-verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (counts, a list of broken/nofollow links, a summary) and whether tracker state changes. Those gaps leave an agent unable to predict the result or side effects, though the core action is clear.

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 0% for the single 'site' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'for a site' without clarifying whether that is a domain, a project name, a URL, or an internal site identifier — a real ambiguity for the only input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+outcome: re-verify every 'live' tracker entry for a site, then flag links that disappeared or became nofollow. The scope ('every live entry', 'for a site') distinguishes it in spirit from the single-link sibling verify_backlink, but it never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'Re-verify' and the 'live' qualifier: this is a maintenance pass over already-tracked links, not a first-time check. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as verify_backlink for a single URL or scan_site for discovery.

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