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

Description discloses behavior: pure computation, URL normalization defaults, and O(N^2) complexity for findMentions. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 informative but verbose (over 100 words). It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the return types. However, it lacks information about error scenarios, input size limits, and authorization requirements. For a complex tool with nested objects, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 adds significant value beyond the schema by specifying the exact input structure (e.g., 'url, internalLinks: [{href, anchor}], title?, bodyText?') and explaining the effects of options like hubCount, findMentions with performance note, and normalizeUrls. Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description compensates well.

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 performs pure graph computation over a crawled page set, listing specific outputs like orphan pages, hubs, authorities, PageRank-lite, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by its focus on multi-page link graph analysis.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_page or search. The description implies it's for link graph analysis but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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