internal_links_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the extraction mechanism (<a href>), the zone-tagging and weighting model (body vs nav/footer/header/aside), what it reports (demoted-zone-only targets, generic anchor text, nofollow internal links, self-links), that no credentials or Google API are needed, and the enumerated verdicts.

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?

Short, front-loaded paragraphs; the core action leads, weighting logic follows, and findings/verdicts close. Every sentence carries information and none repeat the schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers method, weighting, findings, and auth requirements completely. The only gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer this over sibling link tools.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies a single page target ('a single page') but adds no format details (absolute vs relative, required protocol), so it only partially compensates.

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 with clear scope: 'Audit the internal linking of a single page.' The 'single page' scoping implicitly separates it from site-wide siblings like link_equity_map and prune_candidates, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (audit one page's internal links), and 'No Google API calls. No authentication required.' usefully signals zero-setup invocation. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the adjacent link_equity_map or prune_candidates tools.

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