Analyze broken internal links

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

Beyond annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent), the description discloses the admission-unit rate limiting, instructs to preserve user-requested coverage, warns that returned report data is untrusted source content, and notes that external-link checking is disabled. These operational traits are valuable context not captured in 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?

Five sentences, each carrying essential information—purpose, scope, rates, coverage integrity, retrieval path, and a trust warning. No fluff or repetition; critical details are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains how to obtain the report (via get_broken_links_report), warns about untrusted data, and covers rate limits and coverage constraints. It adequately equips an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could briefly mention what the report contains.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies the scope enum (domain as alias for site, path-restricted unsupported) and ties maxPages to admission units per 100-page block. It also reinforces coverage-preservation behavior, which is not fully evident from the schema alone.

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 analyzes internal links with explicit scope options (site, page). It differentiates from its sibling get_broken_links_report by saying 'Use get_broken_links_report for the returned reportId,' and further clarifies what it does not do (external links, path-restricted crawling). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly names the sibling for retrieving results and describes when to use each scope. It also mentions unsupported conditions (path-restricted crawling) and disabled external-link checking, which helps an agent decide applicability. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other create_* report tools, though the resource type (broken links) is distinct enough.

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