check_internal_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: links inside excluded boilerplate do not count, and explains why. It also clarifies that 'Contact us for a quote' is not an offer, which is a useful semantic behavior. It doesn't mention return format or side effects, but for a read-only check tool this is acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining a non-obvious behavioral rule. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only validation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuance (boilerplate exclusion) and the optional figure requirement. It doesn't describe the return value, but that's often acceptable for a check tool. The main gap is not stating what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of failures), but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent 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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of exclude_classes (site-wide CTA blocks) and the semantic of require_figure ('Contact us for a quote' is not an offer). This goes beyond the schema's literal descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('content page links to at least one commercial page from its body'), and adds a concrete optional condition ('states a concrete figure'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_keywords or check_claims by focusing on internal link structure and commercial intent.

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 explains the core use case and the rationale for excluding boilerplate, which implies when to use it (content pages) and why exclude_classes matters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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