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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful data-source scoping ('from its latest run') and the default filter, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what happens when no run exists.

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 with no filler, and the core scope plus default behavior are front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly compressed and the final clause about 'quoted' reads as an appendix, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, default filter, and enum meanings. It still omits the shape of returned records, ordering, and the failure mode when a site has no run, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by translating the opaque enum values, explaining that 'content' means links in page content and 'outbound' means other sites linked to. It also clarifies that quoted link text is surfaced under 'quoted', which the schema cannot convey since there is no output schema.

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 ('the links of a site from its latest run') and enumerates the variants (broken, all, content, outbound), which lets an agent distinguish this from generic crawl or page listing tools. It does not name or differentiate itself against closely related siblings such as mttr_backlinks or mttr_citations, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'broken ones by default' implies the common starting case, and the enumerated show modes hint at when each is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over mttr_backlinks, mttr_pages, or mttr_structure, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a completed run is required) are stated.

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