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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by clarifying the output is a set of suggestions for human approval and noting that roughly one in five is not worth adding, giving the agent realistic quality expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by concise details about the edit type, approval requirement, and quality. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 suggestion-list tool with two parameters, the description covers the nature and structure of the suggestions, including a quality caveat. It doesn't specify the exact return format (list vs. single object) or how results connect to sibling tools, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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?

The description does not explain the two parameters, siteId and limit. The schema documents only limit (50% coverage), leaving siteId undefined in both schema and description. The description instead focuses on response fields (fromUrl, anchor, sentence, toUrl), so an agent gets no added semantic guidance for constructing a correct call.

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's function: it returns internal link suggestions, each described by fromUrl, anchor, sentence, and toUrl. It explicitly says these are suggestions for a person to approve, not actual edits, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like decide_link or mark_fixed that act on links.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving candidate internal links before a human approves them, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like decide_link or findings_list. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given, leaving usage context only inferred.

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