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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 90-day drop-off rule, the enumerated validation states, and the required Cotlet API key scope.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the column contents, then the follow-up tool, then the retention caveat and auth note. Every sentence carries information; no 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the returned rows and validation-state values, which is appropriate. A minor gap remains around ordering, pagination, and whether validation rows appear when no fix was submitted.

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 100%, so both `kind` (with its enum and default) and `property` (with its sc-domain vs URL-prefix format) are already fully documented. The description alludes to the two kinds via the table names but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (page issues), and pins down exactly which tables are read: the "Why pages aren't indexed" table and the "Improve page experience" table. This distinguishes it from sibling list_pages_by_index_status, which it references.

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?

Gives a clear downstream routing hint ("Use the reason as status in list_pages_by_index_status") and states the auth prerequisite. It does not, however, state when an agent should prefer this tool over adjacent reports like get_links_report or inspect_url.

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