get_url_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, what 'inbound links' means in this system, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other non-obvious behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, and the key action and target are front-loaded. It is efficient, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description leaves the meaning of key parameters and tool behavior unclear. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly, especially the 'link' parameter, making the overall context incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. While 'site_url' is inferable, the required 'link' parameter is left completely ambiguous—it is unclear what a link is in this context. The 'page' parameter is also not explained.

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 action (get) and resource (inbound links for a site URL), making its core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar tools like get_link_counts or get_url_info, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving inbound links, but there are no exclusions, conditions, or references to sibling tools.

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