Find broken links on a page

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: HEAD-first requests with GET fallback so 405s aren't misread, plus default rate limiting to avoid hammering sites. This gives the agent a clear mental model of how requests are made.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words; purpose comes first, then method, then the politeness guarantee. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The description covers purpose, HTTP method details, and rate limiting, which is sufficient for a read-only link checker with annotations. The only gap is the lack of an explicit description of the output shape, but since there is no output schema, an agent might still be unsure what the tool returns.

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 schema explains limit, concurrency, and sameHostOnly, covering 80% of parameters; the description adds the notion of a 'capped and rate-limited' default, loosely tied to limit/concurrency. It does not elaborate on timeoutMs or give further parameter-specific guidance, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Read every link on a page and check each one resolves,' which names the exact verb and resource. This clearly separates it from siblings check_page and compare_pages because it targets link resolution rather than single-page or comparative analysis.

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 explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over check_page or compare_pages, nor any mention of situations where link checking is inappropriate. Usage context is only implied by the title and purpose, so the agent gets no routing help.

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