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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds key behavioral context: data comes from first render of sitemap-listed pages, pagination-only links are not observed, and it mirrors crawler discovery. This helps the agent understand data completeness and limitations.

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 three sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by data source context and constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 3 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior adequately: direction meaning, data source, limits, and read-only nature. It could briefly mention output structure, but overall it is fairly complete.

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% and the description adds little beyond schema definitions. It explains direction values and mentions the default limit, but does not provide additional meaning or formatting details beyond what is already in the schema.

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 retrieves internal links for one page, explaining 'in' and 'out' directions with examples (e.g., 'zero inlinks = orphan'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools and provides a specific verb+resource.

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 explains that the tool works for a single page, requires a path, and offers direction options. It mentions constraints like hard cap 200 rows and data source limitations, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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