hreflang_consistency_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the specific checks performed (missing reciprocity, broken URLs, etc.) and the return format (per-URL and global findings). No contradictions with 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 concise: three sentences. The first states the purpose, the second lists checks, the third describes return types. No redundant information; every sentence earns 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?

For a tool with one well-documented parameter and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, checks, and return format. It could explicitly state that the tool performs cross-URL validation (implied by 'across a set of URLs'). Overall, fairly complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'urls' with 100% description coverage, including constraints (max 50, min 2, must be absolute URLs). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate hreflang link tags across a set of URLs.' It lists specific checks (reciprocity, broken targets, duplicates, missing self-link, missing x-default), making the verb-resource combination distinct from sibling tools like check_canonical or redirect_chain_audit.

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 implies usage for hreflang validation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_canonical, robots_txt_validate). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools is large, making this a gap.

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