broken_links

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states that it extracts all links, checks each one's HTTP status, and returns a report with broken links, redirects, and statistics. It does not mention rate limits or external-link handeling, but core behavior is transparent for a read-only checker.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then add mechanism and report contents without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and report contents, and an output schema exists. The missing timeout semantics and lack of alternative-routing guidance leave a measurable gap for correct 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 has zero description coverage, so the description needed to compensate for both parameters. It only implies the URL via 'web page' and never explains the timeout parameter or its units, leaving the default 10 ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('web page') and explains that it inspects HTTP statuses of extracted links, which separates it from generic web_fetch/crawl tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 intended use is clearly implied: use it when you need a broken-link audit of a page. It does not say when to prefer this over web_fetch, web_crawl, or content_quality, nor does it give exclusions, so the guidance remains implicit.

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