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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered weakest first, include orphan counts, and counted=false means the worker has not processed it yet.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior, then adds field semantics and filter availability. It is dense but efficient, with little wasted text.

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 and 0% parameter descriptions, the description carries most of the context. It explains return fields and worker-count status reasonably well, but omits the limit parameter and does not fully specify the website filter semantics, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 parameter meaning. It mentions optional seliee_website_id or seliee_website_uuid, but does not explain limit, default pagination behavior, or whether the two website filters are mutually exclusive or interchangeable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inbound internal-link counts per collection, including returned fields such as inbound_total, per link slot, and orphans. It is distinct from collection listing or link retrieval siblings because it focuses on counts, ordering, and worker-count status.

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?

The usage context is implied by describing counts, weakest-first ordering, and worker status, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_collections, get_collection_links, or related link-count endpoints. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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