page_links

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

With no annotations at all, the description still discloses two operationally important traits: a fixed price of 0.002 USDC per call on Base mainnet and that payment is automatic from the wallet in PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY, so the agent knows invocation spends funds without further auth steps. It stops short of covering failure behavior, rate limits, or whether JavaScript-rendered links are captured.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is extracted and followed by the cost/payment constraint. The 'through api.sitesy.ca' provider mention is minor surplus but not wasteful.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what is returned (internal/external links with anchor text) and the billing side effect. Only edge-case behavior (blocked pages, JS rendering, pagination) is missing.

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 100% for the single 'url' parameter, so the schema already documents it with an example. The description adds only that it is 'one web page' (singular, one URL per call), which is marginal added meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Extract the links on one web page') plus the output shape (internal vs external, anchor text), which separates it from page_reader and page_metadata without naming them. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings, keeping it short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus page_reader, page_metadata, or sitemap, and no stated preconditions for the page being reachable or rendered. The only routing-relevant information is cost, not usage context.

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