get-external-links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – that results are samples rather than an exhaustive list – but says nothing about pagination or result volume despite limit/offset existing in the schema.

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, all load-bearing, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation clauses following. Zero filler.

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 list tool with no output schema, the routing and scope information is complete enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset, which neither the description nor the schema explains.

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 only 33%: host_id has a token 'Host ID' description and limit/offset have none. The description never mentions parameters, so it does nothing to compensate for the two undocumented pagination parameters.

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+resource ('Get external links pointing to the site') and immediately scopes it ('sample pages on other sites that link to this host'). It also names the two siblings it is not, so an agent can separate it from get-external-links-history and get-broken-internal-links without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('user wants sample pages on other sites that link to this host') and two when-nots with the correct alternative named for each. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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