Links on a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior not covered by annotations: tracking parameters are removed and duplicates dropped, plus optional filters for same-site and text/URL containment. This is useful, though it doesn't cover aspects like pagination or rate limits, which are minor for this read-only tool.

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 a single well-structured sentence: core purpose first, then output transformations in parentheses, then optional filters, ending with a use-case clause. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the necessary behavior, filters, and use cases. It does not explain return format (handled by output schema) or edge cases like limit application order, which are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by semantically explaining 'contains' ("containing a word in text or URL") and 'same_site' ("same-site ones"). It also describes the output preprocessing. It doesn't re-explain 'url' or 'limit', but those are self-explanatory from the schema and default behavior.

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 states a specific verb+resource: "The links on a page" with precise output transformations (text and absolute URL, tracking parameters removed, duplicates dropped). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_in_page (text search), page_outline (outline), and read_page (full content) without needing to inspect schemas.

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 closing phrase "For crawling docs or finding a download" gives concrete use cases and implies a lightweight extraction role. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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