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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: it is free, persists nothing ('non salva nulla'), operates virtually on the last audit's graph, and recomputes PageRank. Auth needs and rate limits are unaddressed, but the non-destructive, non-persistent nature is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's nature and mechanism before the return details. No wasted words, though the return-value enumeration is tightly packed and would be clearer if an output schema existed.

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 exists, so the description correctly enumerates returns: authority share (%), before/after positions of source and destination, most-touched pages, and 3 alternative sources. The remaining gaps are the unexplained 'view' enum and project_id, but the tool's behavior and outputs are largely covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source/target format ('URL completi o path') and their link relationship, which is genuinely useful, but leaves the 'view' enum (auto/structural/ai) and project_id entirely undefined. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Simulatore di link interni') and explains the exact mechanism: virtually adds a source→target link to the last audit's graph and recalculates internal PageRank. The function is distinct from the get_*/run_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'gratuito, non salva nulla' implies a safe what-if exploration context, and mentioning 3 pre-simulated alternative sources hints at the follow-up workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_page_links or refine_topical_architecture, 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.