Extract page links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (flags, anchor text, nofollow) and features like scope filtering and deduplication, enhancing the agent's understanding of behavior beyond the safe, read-only nature.

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 three sentences long, with the core action in the first sentence and supporting details in the second. It is tightly written with no filler, effectively front-loading the most important information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, output details, filtering capabilities, deduplication, limit, and use cases. With an output schema present and annotations providing safety context, the description is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description reiterates the overall functionality but does not add new semantic detail for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 begins with 'List the links on a web page as absolute URLs' which is a specific verb and resource. It details the output (internal/external flags, anchor text, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning link extraction specifically, not page contents or metadata.

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 explicitly suggests use cases: 'crawling a documentation tree, auditing outbound links or finding next pages.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not include exclusions or alternatives, which would push it to a 5.

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