internal_link_suggestions

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data provenance — results derive from a cached scan, so output may be stale and depends on a prior run — and the word "suggest" implies a non-mutating read, but it never confirms read-only behavior, permissions, or what happens when no cache exists.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the concrete output format front-loaded before the rationale. The second sentence (backlink equity) is mild motivational context rather than operational guidance, but it is short enough to earn its place.

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 not be explained, and the tool is low complexity with only two parameters. However, the key operational question — which cached scan the domain must match, and how the limit affects results — is left unresolved, which is a real gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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% for two parameters, and the description never mentions either `domain` or `limit`. The phrase "cached scan" weakly implies the domain scopes to a previously scanned site, but nothing explains what `limit` bounds (number of suggestions? pages analyzed?) or its default of 20.

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 names a specific verb and resource — suggest internal links — and even specifies the returned shape (source page -> target page, anchor text) plus the targeting criterion (weakly-linked pages, keyword overlap). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as seo_link_audit or find_opportunities, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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?

"For weakly-linked pages" implies the situation where this tool is appropriate, and "from the cached scan" hints at a prerequisite (a prior site scan), but neither the prerequisite nor any alternative tool is stated explicitly. There is no when-not guidance, so the agent must guess whether to run this before or after the audit tools.

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