ahrefs_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says extraction goes to a temp directory and that a summary of errors/warnings/notices is provided, but it does not disclose whether the temp directory is cleaned up, what happens if the directory already exists, or what the summary structure looks like. This is partial transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. No redundancy or 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 tool has 2 simple parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to explain return behavior. It mentions 'summary of issues found' but not the exact format or whether extracted files persist after execution. Adequate but with gaps in post-extraction behavior and return structure.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema (zip_path and output_dir, including default). The description doesn't add significant extra meaning beyond echoing the temp directory default; the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Extract and summarize an Ahrefs site audit ZIP file.' It specifies the resource (Ahrefs site audit ZIP) and the action (extract and summarize), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target WordPress/Cloudflare, as this is the only Ahrefs-specific tool.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when handling an Ahrefs site audit ZIP file. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since siblings are unrelated (wp_*, cloudflare_*), there is no ambiguity about which tool to choose for this task.

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