get_link_counts

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

With no annotations, the description itself conveys that this is a read operation returning aggregated counts rather than the full link list, and 'inbound' clarifies the link direction. It does not disclose freshness, permissions, or how counts are aggregated across a site, but the core behavioral profile is adequate.

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, non-redundant sentence that front-loads the action and object without filler. It is concise without being a tautology, though its minimalism contributes to under-specification 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 simple one-parameter signature and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks parameter-format guidance and sibling differentiation, so it is only minimally complete for confident selection and invocation.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It identifies site_url as a 'site' but does not clarify expected format such as root domain versus full URL, protocol requirements, or whether trailing slashes matter.

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 action ('Get') and a specific resource ('inbound link counts'), scoped to 'a site,' so the basic operation is understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like get_url_links, but 'counts' versus raw links provides reasonable differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as get_url_links, get_url_info, or get_url_traffic_info. It gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this count is the appropriate result versus a more detailed link tool.

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