seo_internal_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate a read-only analysis behavior and enumerates the analysis dimensions, but it does not clarify whether the tool uses the provided HTML directly, fetches the URL, or how the suggestions are returned. This leaves meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the supporting detail in the second sentence. Every phrase contributes value with no filler or repetition.

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 has low complexity and a fully documented two-parameter schema, but there is no output schema and no stated return format. The description explains the analysis focus but omits practical invocation context such as how the HTML input is consumed, what the output looks like, or any limitations.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds general context about internal linking but does not add specific meaning to the url or html parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze internal linking structure.' It then lists concrete checks (anchor text quality, orphan page risk, link distribution) and an action (suggest linking opportunities), making it distinct from the generic seo_analyze and other SEO sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool — when internal linking analysis is needed — but it does not explicitly distinguish it from alternate tools or say when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the usage guidance is left to inference.

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