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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds little beyond stating 'v1 stub', which implies incomplete functionality but does not elaborate on behavior, return data, or limitations. 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get internal link structure for a domain'). It has no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also fails to clarify what 'internal link structure' includes or how 'limit' affects results. The annotations provide safety context, but the tool's functionality remains under-specified, especially for a simple tool with many siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the domain implicitly and says nothing about the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no meaningful explanation of parameters beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of 'limit'.

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 verb (Get) and resource (internal link structure for a domain). It is specific enough to indicate the function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_outbound_links or get_anchor_text, and 'v1 stub' hints at limited maturity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between get_internal_links and similar SEO tools like get_referring_domains.

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