webmaster_list_external_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only indicates a read operation and a page boundary; it does not mention authentication, rate limits, ordering, or whether 'samples' implies a non-exhaustive or random subset.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key action and resource appear immediately.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks enough behavioral and routing context for an agent to choose it confidently among many webmaster siblings. Adding host scoping and pagination details would materially improve completeness.

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%, so the description needed to compensate. 'One page' loosely hints at limit/offset semantics, but it does not explain host_id or clarify how limit and offset interact, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('external link samples'), and the phrase 'one page' suggests a paginated listing. It is distinguishable from siblings like webmaster_get_external_links_history, though 'samples' is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives such as webmaster_list_broken_links or webmaster_get_external_links_history. The 'one page' wording implies pagination, but no use cases, exclusions, or alternate tool references are provided.

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