get_connected_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool performs a read-only list retrieval scoped to pages linking to the user's site, which is minimally transparent. However, it does not explain what 'connected' means, pagination behavior, or any data source limitations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and target resource are immediately clear.

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 is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so basic invocation is possible. However, the description leaves 'connected pages' ambiguous and provides no context for selecting this tool among 33 similar link- and page-oriented siblings.

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?

The input schema has only site_url with no description and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies site_url refers to 'your site', but it does not clarify expected format, whether protocol is needed, or how the value relates to the returned connected pages.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and names a specific resource ('connected pages that link to your site'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings like get_url_links or get_link_counts, so the term 'connected pages' remains somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over its many siblings. The description states only what the tool does, with no context about when it is appropriate or when an alternative like get_url_links should be used.

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