get_url_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (suggested by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'site_url' implicitly ('for specific site URL'), leaving 'link' and 'page' undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'link' represents (e.g., a specific URL to filter by) or how pagination works.

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 'Get inbound links for specific site URL' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('inbound links'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'inbound links' specifically means in this context (e.g., backlinks, internal links, or something else). It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_link_counts' or 'get_connected_pages', which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_link_counts' and 'get_connected_pages' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or purpose, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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