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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the result is sorted weakest-first, zero-inbound articles are bucketed as `orphans`, and `counted=false` signals the worker has not yet processed the article (i.e., eventual consistency). It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination.

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?

A single tight paragraph with the core metric front-loaded and the field explanations following. Minor waste in the parenthetical and the ambiguous phrase "per link slot," which is not self-explanatory.

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 describing the return shape (inbound_total, per-slot counts, orphans, counted flag) and ordering, which is sufficient to interpret results. Missing only pagination/limit behavior, which matters given a default of 200.

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 carry all three parameters. It names the two website identifiers only by restating their field names with no explanation of when to use the id versus the uuid, and `limit` (default 200) is not mentioned at all beyond the schema default.

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 resource and metric: inbound internal-link counts per article, sourced from the link-counter workers. The "weakest first" ordering and `orphans` field make it distinguishable from siblings like get_article_links or list_collections_links_counts, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives (get_article_links, list_collections_links_counts) and no preconditions. The only scoping hint is "Optional seliee_website_id or seliee_website_uuid," which implies omitting them returns all websites, but an agent must infer that.

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