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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior. The description adds real context beyond them: a cap of 60 links checked for status, the 4xx/5xx broken-link classification, redirect detection, and the constraint that internal links should point at the final address. These are genuine behavioral disclosures.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and only then the status-check behavior. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the phrase about internal links pointing at the final address is slightly parenthetical.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so explicitly (links with anchor text, rel attributes, internal/external, empty-anchor links, broken and redirecting links). For a 3-parameter read tool this is largely complete, with only the limit/check-count relationship left implicit.

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 only 33%, so the description carries extra burden. It explains check_status's two modes and their effect, which the enum alone does not convey, but 'limit' (default 300 in schema) and 'url' get no added meaning and the relationship between the 300 listed limit and the 60 checked cap is never clarified.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates the fields returned (anchor text, rel, internal/external, empty anchor links), which tells an agent exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, contrast itself with overlapping siblings such as page_audit, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through the check_status explanation ('check_status "internal" (or "all") also checks up to 60 of them and lists broken links'), which hints at when to enable status checking. But there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over page_audit, crawl_report, or redirects_find, and no stated preconditions.

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