wp_seo_suggest_internal_links

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavioral traits: ranking weights (title matches 3x > excerpt matches 1x + recency boost) and source post exclusion when post_id is given. This goes beyond a generic 'suggest' and helps the agent understand how results are ordered.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for the main purpose, one for ranking logic, and one for exclusion behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler.

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 description covers the core functionality, ranking behavior, and exclusion, but it does not specify the structure of the returned list (e.g., whether items include post ID, title, score) nor clarify how limit/status interact with the described behavior. Given no output schema, this leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description explains the roles of 'keyword' and 'post_id' as alternative inputs, which is valuable since schema coverage is 0%. However, 'limit' and 'status' are not addressed in the description; 'status' is only indirectly implied by 'published posts', and 'limit' is left to the schema's default.

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 with a specific verb ('Suggest internal links') and resource ('returns a ranked list of related published posts'). It also includes distinctive details on ranking weights and source post exclusion, which differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_search_posts and wp_posts_list.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to find related posts to link to, given a keyword or post_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the unique purpose makes the usage scenario evident.

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