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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: an empty list is a valid result, and it won't fabricate links to unseen pages or alter copy. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are cached, or whether the crawl must be in a finished state (only implied).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and then the scope exclusions. Every clause earns its place with no repetition.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover return shape and safety, and it only partially does (empty-list case is covered, structure of a suggestion is not). For a one-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves obvious gaps.

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 0% and there is a single required parameter, crawl_id, that the description never defines or tells you how to obtain (presumably from crawl_site). The phrase 'from a finished crawl' hints at the constraint but adds no real syntax or source guidance.

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 derived from a finished crawl. This is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with it, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent crawl-output tools like get_crawl_issues.

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 reach for this tool versus alternatives (crawl_site, get_crawl_issues, audit_page). The description tells you what it produces but not the preconditions for calling it, such as needing a completed crawl first.

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