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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the returned diagnostics, but says nothing about pagination (limit/cursor) or defaulting to the latest crawl when crawl_id is omitted.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 usefully summarizes the return shape (link counts per page plus sampled/linked pages and anchor diagnostics), which is the key missing structured data. It is only slightly short on pagination and crawl-default behavior for a 5-parameter 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 only 40%. The description names site_url_ids and its provenance (from read_site_pages), partially compensating, but leaves limit, cursor, project_id and the 'omit for latest crawl' behavior of crawl_id to the schema alone.

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 specific verb and resource: internal link counts per page for a crawl. It also signals the diagnostic content (sampled linking/linked pages, anchor diagnostics) and names read_site_pages as the source of IDs, giving an agent a concrete handle on what this returns.

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 implies a workflow ('pass site_url_ids (from read_site_pages)') for batching several pages, but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives such as read_site_health or read_site_pages, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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