links

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the ordering behavior (page order vs. relevance ranking), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the page must be fetched first, how links are returned, or truncation beyond the schema's default of 30.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the query behavior immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter read tool with a fully described schema this is largely sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a returned link looks like (URL only? anchor text?) or how many results to expect, which an agent needs to consume the output.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including query's ranking effect and max_links' default. The description restates the query behavior without adding format or syntax detail, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List a page's links') and implicitly positions itself as the discovery step before 'fetch'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'crawl', so it stops short of a 5.

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 hints at the workflow — use query to rank links 'so you can pick which to fetch' — which implies this tool precedes fetch. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over crawl, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, leaving usage mostly inferred.

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