get_url_links

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read-only retrieval semantics, pagination through the page argument, and a possible error via 'Raises: BingWebmasterError', which adds some behavioral context, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or result-page behavior.

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 compact, clearly organized into Args, Returns, and Raises sections, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read operation with an output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential invocation details: parameters, return type, and error condition. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it lacks usage guidance.

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. The Args section provides a meaningful one-line explanation for each parameter, especially clarifying that 'link' is the URL whose inbound links are being retrieved.

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 verb and resource: 'Retrieve inbound links for a specific URL.' It is distinct enough from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar tools like get_link_counts or get_url_info.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_link_counts or get_url_info. The description gives the operation but not the decision context.

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