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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the 100-links-per-site cap with a total count, the checked:false plus reason response for unsupported sites, the critical caveat that this does not mean no links are broken, and the freshness caveat that SEObolt rechecks on its own schedule. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before trusting the result.

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 resource and definition are front-loaded and every clause carries information (scope, fields, caps, caveats), with zero filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, pushing close to a wall of text for a two-parameter read tool, so it is efficient but not maximally scannable.

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 fills the gap by listing returned fields (URL, status, post_id and title, anchor text, redirect) and the per-site total, plus the checked:false edge case. Nothing needed to interpret the response or decide whether the result is trustworthy is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description restates the search filter and the site_ids default without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Broken links in each chosen site's content') and pins down the definition precisely: 4xx/5xx, unreachable, or status_code null, sourced from SEObolt Pro's broken link checker. That definition distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like emcp-tools-find-broken-links and rank_math_get_404_logs without opening any schema.

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?

States the defaults (site_ids omitted = every connected site) and the search narrowing rule, plus the important precondition that sites lacking SEObolt Pro or with the checker off return checked:false. It gives clear context for invoking it but never explicitly routes the agent away from a similar sibling tool, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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