Внешние ссылки на сайт

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds practical behavioral details: the count field may arrive as a string despite being int64, the structure of the links array, and the permission prerequisite. These are meaningful nuances not captured by annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences encapsulate purpose, return structure, pagination, and permissions. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence provides new, valuable 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 read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return structure (count and links with fields), pagination behavior, and permissions. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter guidance beyond reiterating offset/limit pagination, which is already evident from the schema. It does not introduce any new parameter semantics.

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 'returns examples of external links to the site' — a specific verb (returns) on a well-defined resource (external links) with scope (to the site). It distinguishes from all sibling tools by naming the exact resource, and the title reinforces this.

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 clear usage context: it mentions pagination via offset/limit and the requirement of confirmed rights to the site. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use, this is sufficient for a tool with no direct sibling overlap.

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