site-explorer-linked-anchors-external

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving data with metrics, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose statement.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first...') is a technical directive that doesn't belong in the purpose description. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured to separate purpose from parameter hints.

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?

Given 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is inadequate. It provides basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, differentiation from siblings, and output format information. The tool appears complex but the description doesn't provide sufficient guidance for proper use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'specified domain, subdomain, or URL' which hints at the 'target' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the 8 parameters (limit, mode, order_by, protocol, select, target, timeout, where) or their semantics. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 tool retrieves data about external anchor text for a specified domain/subdomain/URL, including specific metrics like dofollow link counts and distinct linked domains. It specifies the resource (external anchor text) and verb (retrieves data about), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal' beyond mentioning 'external' in the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'site-explorer-anchors' or 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal'. It only includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema', which is a technical prerequisite rather than usage context. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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