extract_links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is transparent. The description adds the action of extracting links and an example, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, pagination).

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 sentences plus a concise example. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Ideal for quick understanding.

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 read-only link extraction tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context. It doesn't detail return format, but the tool's behavior is straightforward and well-illustrated by the example. Minor gap: could mention that it returns a list of URLs.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. The description adds an example using filter_external, which provides context but does not significantly extend schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'discover all hyperlinks on a page' with specific use cases (crawl seed lists, audit broken links, find related resources). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_url and extract_text by focusing on link discovery.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and an example with filter_external. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings like map_site, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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