check_broken_links_on_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies it scans for 404s, which is transparent about the type of broken link. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like handling of redirects, timeouts, or whether it scans all links on the page.

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, front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but could be slightly more informative without adding fluff.

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 is very brief and does not mention the output schema (which exists but is not shown). It lacks details on return values, error handling, or scope of scanning. For a simple tool, this may be sufficient, but given the lack of annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. 'url' is obvious, but 'limit' (default 20) is not clarified. The description adds no value beyond the schema's structure.

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 it scans a page for broken links (404s), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'onpage_audit' or 'technical_health_check' by focusing solely on broken links.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use to find broken links on a page. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is adequate but lacks usage context.

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