Get broken internal links report

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: coverage semantics (internal rows vs provider totals vs excluded externals), the caveat that a bounded crawl does not equal full-site coverage, the meaning of HTTP 403, and a prompt-injection warning that report data is untrusted content. Nothing contradicts the 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?

Purpose and coverage caveats are front-loaded in the first sentences. Later sentences about balance reporting and admission units are denser but still carry actionable constraints; a slightly tighter grouping would improve scannability.

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?

Covers the major hazards for a read-only retrieval tool: coverage limits, 403 interpretation, untrusted content, and balance freshness. Absent an output schema, it does not describe the report's structural contents or pagination behavior, which leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single reportId parameter is already documented with its pattern and the warning that it is an MCP report ID, not a provider ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve internal link and resource checks') plus the key differentiator 'without re-running the crawl', which implicitly separates it from create_broken_links_report. It stops short of naming the create sibling explicitly, but an agent can still identify the tool's role.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from re-running the crawl and from calling get_balance again when balance is already included. These are concrete when/when-not instructions, though it never states conditions under which this tool should not be used at all (e.g., stale or incomplete reports).

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