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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: boilerplate links are excluded by the crawler, and results are capped at 200 per direction plus a total. It does not mention permissions or whether data is cached/fresh, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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 no waste, front-loading what the tool returns before adding the boilerplate exclusion, url format, and cap. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description does well to describe the returned fields and the result cap. It is close to complete, missing only an explanation of the `view` parameter and any auth/scope note.

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. It explains `url` (full URL or path) and implicitly covers `direction` via 'in entrata e in uscita', but the `view` enum (auto/structural/ai) is left entirely unexplained, and there is no guidance on `project_id`.

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+resource: retrieves internal CONTENT links (inbound and outbound) for a page, enumerating exactly what fields come back (anchor text, cluster, cross_cluster, reciprocal, nofollow, broken). An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like simulate_internal_link or get_backlinks.

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?

It clarifies scope by excluding boilerplate links (menu/header/footer/sidebar) and stating the 200-link cap, which is useful selection context. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over simulate_internal_link or get_backlinks, so usage is only implied.

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