webmaster_list_external_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add the useful 'one page' pagination behavior, but omits auth scoping, rate limits, and what a sample contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented surface it hides.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance or sibling differentiation, the definition leaves an agent with real gaps for a required-parameter list tool.

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 carries the full burden for three parameters, yet it only vaguely implies limit/offset via 'one page' and says nothing about the required host_id or its format. The schema lists the params but explains none of them.

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 verb (read/list) and resource (external link samples) with a pagination hint ('one page'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, 'samples' is vague and the description does not distinguish this from the sibling webmaster_get_external_links_history, leaving the agent unsure which link tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related history or broken-links siblings. The agent must infer everything about tool selection from the name alone.

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