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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint already declared, the description still adds useful context: it enumerates the returned fields (source page, target URL, internal/external, anchor text, rel, HTTP status, link health) and discloses pagination behavior. It does not cover ordering, limits on result volume, or failure modes for incomplete audits.

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 short sentences, zero padding. The result-content sentence comes first and the pagination note second, which matches the order an agent needs the 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?

There is no output schema, so the enumeration of returned fields and the pagination note earn their place and make the definition usable end to end. For a read-only paged list tool that is nearly sufficient; only failure/prerequisite behavior for unfinished audits is left unstated.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents limit, cursor, runId and projectId on its own. The description's "Page with cursor and nextCursor" restates what the cursor parameter already says rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ("Lists the links a finished SEO Audit found") and scopes it to a completed audit, which separates it from the sibling list_audit_findings/pages tools by resource. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation comes from resource wording rather than direct contrast.

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 word "finished" implies a prerequisite worth noting, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_audit_findings or list_audit_pages, nor what happens if the audit is still running. Routing is only implied via the schema's runId/projectId descriptions pointing at list_audits, get_audit and list_sites.

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