find_internal_link_opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost of $0.05 USDC, which is important for agent decision-making, and the qualifier 'contextually relevant' suggests a nuanced matching behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Find missing contextually relevant internal links') and appends the cost as a secondary but necessary detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool is a read-only analysis with two parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent). The description states the purpose and cost, which is sufficient for a straightforward 'find links' operation. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description implies a result (missing links), and the schema provides enough input guidance.

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 100% with 'domain' and 'pages' each having a clear description (e.g., 'Site domain.' and 'Two or more site pages with title and text for best results.'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 opens with the specific verb 'Find' and names the resource ('missing contextually relevant internal links') with an explicit scope ('across supplied pages'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_keyword_opportunities and find_competitor_content_gaps, which target different SEO entities.

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 clearly implies the input expectation ('supplied pages') and the task (finding missing internal links), which sets context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct resource and scope make the usage evident without needing to refer to sibling tools.

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