extract_links

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It only lists parameter defaults and a brief note on filter_domain, but omits critical behavioral details: error handling, redirects, how links are extracted (href vs. full URL), and what happens on failure.

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 brief docstring with a one-line summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundant phrases. Front-loading the verb 'Extract' immediately conveys action.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description explains parameter mechanics well. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would make it complete for an agent (e.g., what the output looks like, rate limits, or domain filtering logic). The output schema may cover return format, but in-tool guidance is minimal.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema: filter_domain notes 'only return links to the same domain', timeout specifies 'in seconds', max_links mentions default (50) and max (200). Schema coverage is 0%, so these clarifications are essential.

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 'Extract all links from a web page,' which is a specific verb + resource. It immediately distinguishes from siblings like extract_by_selector (CSS extraction) and search_web (search).

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. For example, it doesn't mention that extract_by_selector might be preferred for specific CSS selections, or that fetch_clean_text is for text extraction.

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