Cross-site internal linking opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it explains that the tool identifies overlapping queries, suggests links, and optionally fetches top candidate pages to check for existing cross-domain links. This clarifies the tool's analysis and network behavior, which is not covered by annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the optional behavior is added in the second. No filler or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and an optional behavior, which is adequate for a high-level understanding. However, it does not explain how optional parameters like top, minImpressions, or date ranges affect results, nor what the output format is. The annotations cover safety, but the description leaves gaps for an agent to correctly configure the call.

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 only 29% (only siteA and checkExistingLinks have descriptions). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, such as top, startDate, endDate, minImpressions, or the semantics of siteB. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents without guidance on how to set these parameters or their impact.

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 clear and specific purpose: for two owned Search Console properties on the same topic, it finds pages ranking for overlapping queries and suggests cross-links. The verb 'find' and 'suggest' with a concrete resource (two properties) makes the tool's function unambiguous, and it is distinct from any sibling tool like gsc_opportunities or content_refresh_candidates.

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 description gives a clear usage context: 'for two Search Console properties you own on the same topic.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition 'you own' and 'same topic' is a sufficient usage guideline, especially given no sibling tool overlaps directly.

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