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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds nothing. What earns credit is the real behavioral detail: the previewed title is derived from the target page's own title, and omitting resourceIds falls back to pages the audit flagged. It does not explain pagination behavior, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler; the scoping and the downstream tool are front-loaded. The fragmentary first sentence reads slightly awkwardly but stays compact.

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 read-only preview tool with a full output schema and complete parameter coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is previewed, the two selection modes, and the follow-up tool. Pagination and the allowDuplicate toggle are left entirely to structured fields.

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 every parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the resourceIds/flagged-pages fallback, which the schema also states, and never mentions page, limit, or allowDuplicate. Value beyond the schema is marginal.

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 resource (internal links lacking a title attribute) and what is returned (the title the app would fill in). It is clearly distinct from siblings like apply_link_titles or list_broken_links. The opening is a sentence fragment with no verb, which costs a point but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

It gives two explicit invocation modes: pass resourceIds for specific pages, or omit them to walk audit-flagged pages. It also routes the agent forward by naming apply_link_titles as the write follow-up. It stops short of stating when this tool should be skipped in favor of a sibling, so it is not a full 5.

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