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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine boundary context beyond that: it can legitimately return an empty list, it will not invent links to pages the crawl never saw, and it will not modify copy — all useful expectations to set for an agent.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the constraints follow. 'Does NOT rewrite your copy' is slightly tangential but still clarifies scope rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the notable return case (empty list) and key non-behaviors, which is good. What is missing is how to obtain a valid crawl_id (presumably from crawl_site or get_audit) and any hint about the shape of the suggestions returned.

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 meaning for crawl_id. It implies the id must reference a finished crawl, which adds some semantic constraint, but does not say where the id comes from or what an invalid/unfinished id yields.

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+resource ('internal-link suggestions') and scopes it to a finished crawl, so the agent knows this is a retrieval, not a generation, tool. It does not name any sibling to differentiate from (e.g., get_crawl_issues), which keeps it 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?

'From a finished crawl' implies the precondition that a crawl must already have completed, which is useful guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_crawl_issues or audit_page, nor what to do if the crawl is not yet finished, leaving usage to inference.

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