get_deep_link

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type (List[DeepLink]) and a raised exception (BingWebmasterError), which is helpful, but it doesn't describe read-only semantics, pagination, or any other side effects. For a no-annotation tool this is average but not thorough.

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 uses a compact Args/Returns/Raises structure that is easy to scan, with the core purpose stated in one sentence. It avoids fluff, though the bullet-style format is slightly more elaborate than necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, for a deprecated tool, the description lacks a recommended alternative and doesn't clarify what an 'algo URL' is or how it relates to other deep-link tools. Given the low parameter documentation, agents need more contextual guidance than this to use it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only provides terse one-line explanations for each parameter ('The URL of the site' and 'The specific URL to get deep links for'). The difference between 'site_url' and 'url' remains ambiguous, and there are no formats, examples, or value constraints, which is insufficient at this coverage level.

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 a specific action ('Get deep links') and resource ('specific algo URL'), adding a deprecation notice that helps agents know to avoid it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like get_deep_link_algo_urls and get_deep_link_blocks, so an agent may still conflate them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many deep-link and deprecation alternatives. The deprecated notice hints at caution but does not point to a recommended replacement such as get_deep_link_algo_urls, leaving the agent to infer migration paths.

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