extract_links

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds crucial output structure documentation ('Returns a JSON array with link text, URL, line number, and type') which compensates for the missing output schema. No contradictions with 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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste: first sentence covers action and output format, second covers use cases. Front-loaded with the core operation. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter extraction tool, the description is fully complete. It compensates for the lack of output schema by detailing the JSON return structure. Combined with comprehensive annotations, no additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'markdown' parameter, which is adequately described in the schema as 'The Markdown text to extract links from.' The description references 'Markdown document' reinforcing the parameter purpose but does not add additional syntax constraints or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Extract' with clear resource 'links and images' and scope 'from a Markdown document.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling conversion tools (convert_*) and other extraction tools (extract_code_blocks, extract_structure) by specifying exactly what content is targeted.

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?

Provides concrete use cases ('Useful for link checking, SEO analysis, or extracting references') indicating when to invoke the tool. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives for extraction tasks, but the positive examples are specific enough to guide selection.

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