internal_link_opportunities

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only suggestion tool and implies analysis of page strength and query sharing, but lacks details on data source (e.g., Search Console), definitions of 'stronger' and 'weaker', or whether the tool performs any side effects.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description omits context on output format, return types, or limitations (e.g., does it return a list? Are there scoring metrics?). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would help an agent understand expected results.

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 input schema covers 6 parameters with descriptions, achieving 67% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how 'minQueryImpressions' thresholds work or 'limit' behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.

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 suggests internal linking opportunities from stronger to weaker pages sharing valuable queries. It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('internal linking opportunities'), and the context of 'stronger pages to weaker pages' distinguishes it from sibling tools like cannibalization_check or ctr_opportunities.

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?

No guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a specific use case (internal linking improvements), but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like content_decay or quick_wins.

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