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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pages already linking to the target are excluded, orphan pages are flagged, and a completed audit is required.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the target variants, then exclusions and when-to-use. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the precondition (completed audit), the two target modes, and the exclusion/flagging behavior.

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 the schema already documents topic, audit_id, and target_url in detail. The description's note about new pages and topics largely mirrors the schema text rather than adding syntax or format guidance, 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 and resource ('suggest which existing pages should link to a target page') plus the payload ('with anchor text') and the required precondition ('based on a completed site audit'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_urls or get_site_audit.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'publishing new content or fixing pages that get no internal links.' It also clarifies the two target modes (audited page vs. new page). It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling competes directly for this job.

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