link_extract

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating exactly what the tool returns: internal vs external links, anchor text, nofollow attributes, and link counts. This goes beyond the annotations and offers concrete output expectations, though it lacks caveats about page-size limits or rate restrictions.

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 tightly organized: a two-line summary, an output specification, a use-case list, and Args. Every sentence contributes functional value, and the structure is scannable. There is no fluff or repetition.

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, return values, and common use cases, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The only notable omission is the undocumented 'config' parameter and any mention of result limits or error behavior. Since no output schema exists, the return description is helpful, but the config gap prevents a perfect score.

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 Args section compensates by explaining 'url' (with an example) and 'js_rendering' (default false). However, the 'config' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving an unexplained field. This partial coverage gives a baseline but clearly has a gap.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Extract and classify') and resource ('all links from a webpage'), and further details the output (internal vs external links, anchor text, nofollow attributes, link counts). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling crawl/scrape tools, meeting the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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 lists five distinct use cases (link audits, outbound analysis, internal linking reviews, competitor link building opportunities, nofollow distribution) which gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' definition.

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