rybbit_get_outbound_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core function. It does not disclose how the list is ordered, whether counts are aggregated per link, how date parameters interact, or any rate limits. This could mislead an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence with no filler words, efficiently conveying the primary purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 of 7 parameters including alternative date ranges (pastMinutesStart/End) and filters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the structure of the returned list, how occurrence counts are computed, or the relationship between the date parameters. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation without additional schema reads.

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 input schema descriptions cover all 7 parameters (100% coverage), including formats and purpose (e.g., startDate, endDate, pastMinutes). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get a list of outbound link clicks') and the resource ('outbound link clicks') with their occurrence counts, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other entities (e.g., events, goals, sessions). The verb is specific and the outcome is understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., siteId), time period selection, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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