List the links on a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cost ("1 credit") and the shape of the returned link records. It omits failure behavior for unreachable pages or JavaScript-rendered content.

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 short sentences: capability plus returned fields first, usage second, cost last. Zero filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with the annotations covering safety and the description covering cost and intent, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, with url, the type enum, and the limit default/max all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every link on a web page") and enumerates the returned fields (anchor text, follow/nofollow, internal/external), which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from extract_images or extract_metadata. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it falls 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?

Gives three concrete use contexts: crawling a site, finding pages to read next, and auditing links. That is clear positive guidance, but it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., use url_to_markdown when you want the page text).

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