get_link_counts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'Retrieve's data and raises a BingWebmasterError on failure, implying a read-only operation and an error condition. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description covers basic behavior but lacks depth, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core action. There is no redundancy or unnecessary prose, making it highly efficient.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: the parameters, the return type, and the error case. However, it omits details such as pagination semantics (e.g., what page 0 means, page size) and does not mention any constraints on site_url format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still leaves some operational details unclear.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides clear explanations for both site_url ('The URL of the site') and page ('The page number of results to retrieve'). While not extremely detailed, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare types and constraints, warranting a 4.

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 action (retrieve) and the resource (link counts for a specific site), which is specific enough to understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_url_links, but the wording is unambiguous. The verb and resource are distinct, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_url_links or get_children_url_info. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool. The only usage hint is the parameter description, which is not explicit enough for tool selection.

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