link_equity_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the hard ceiling (max_pages 100), the crawl scope limitation that makes 'orphan' probabilistic rather than site-wide, and that pages_crawled/pages_failed are always reported. Auth requirements and rate limiting are not addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded topic sentence, then mechanism, then a prioritized output list, then scope caveats and verdicts. Each sentence adds distinct information and the actionability ordering is genuine signal rather than filler.

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 explaining return shape is optional, yet the description still enumerates the output categories and clarifies the limits of the 'orphan' verdict and coverage bounds. The remaining gap is operational context (permissions, runtime expectations for a crawl) rather than anything an agent needs to construct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning. It defines `days` (impression window) and `max_pages` (hard ceiling of 100), but leaves `site` and `delay_seconds` unexplained beyond their bare names, so half the parameters remain semantically thin.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Map internal link flow across a site's most-visible pages and cross it with GSC') and immediately separates itself from the single-page link audit approach. An agent can distinguish it from internal_links_audit and prune_candidates without opening either schema.

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?

It frames the use case sharply ('answers the question a link audit on a single page cannot: which pages are close to page one and receive no editorial link at all') and orders outputs by actionability, which tells the agent which inputs are worth the crawl cost. It stops short of naming sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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