site-explorer-outlinks-stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the statistical data includes (e.g., counts, distributions). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences: one states the purpose clearly, and the other provides a usage note. It's front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence is somewhat vague ('real input schema') and doesn't add core value efficiently. While not verbose, it could be more structured with clearer parameter hints or behavioral details.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, output format, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a data retrieval tool in a suite with many similar tools, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (mode, protocol, target) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'URL, domain, or site section,' which hints at the 'target' parameter, but doesn't explain 'mode' or 'protocol' or provide any details on formats, constraints, or examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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's purpose: 'Retrieves statistical data about the outbound links (outlinks) from a specified URL, domain, or site section.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('statistical data about outbound links'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on outlinks statistics rather than backlinks, keywords, or other metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' beyond the outlinks focus.

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 minimal guidance: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This implies a prerequisite but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other site-explorer tools for different metrics) or what contexts it's suited for. No explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives are given, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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