PDF: links on a page

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read profile, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description does add the meaningful default that omitting page means 'the page shown' and clarifies the internal-vs-external target distinction, but there is little else (no pagination, ordering, or volume limits).

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?

Roughly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the follow-up call is a compact inline example. Minor redundancy from restating 'Links on a page' twice, but nothing is padded.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, the page default, and the workflow continuation. The only material gap is the unexplained 'path' parameter, which no other structured field covers.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry both parameters. It compensates for 'page' by explaining the null default ('default: the page shown') and shows it used in the page_text example, but 'path' is never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Links on a page with their targets') and states exactly what is returned: anchor text and line, plus target page/line for internal links or the URL. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like page_text by casting itself as the citation-following step rather than the text-fetch step.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('to follow citations yourself') and an explicit follow-up recipe: reach the target with page_text(page=..., lines="<target_line>-..."). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative tool by name, so it is clear but not fully routable.

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