check-links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully inform about behavioral traits. It states the output type (structured report with suggestions) but does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, timeouts, or dependencies on network access. The description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks important operational context.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and output. Every word adds value: it states the action, what it finds, and the return format. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a sufficient overview. It explains the core functionality and output type. However, it does not mention prerequisites like internet access or that the website must be publicly accessible, which would enhance completeness. Still, it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'url', which is described as 'The URL of the website to analyze'. The tool description adds context about what analysis is performed but does not enhance parameter semantics (e.g., examples, formats). Since coverage is high, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb 'Find' and lists exact items it detects (broken links, missing meta tags, redirect chains). It distinguishes itself by mentioning the output format (structured report with fix suggestions), giving a clear understanding of what the tool does.

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 implies usage for any website but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use. Since there are no sibling tools listed, the lack of direct alternatives is mitigated, but the lack of any usage constraints (e.g., website size, authentication) limits the score.

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