Find broken outbound links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: 'Checks each target once, paced, and reports the pages that link to it,' indicating deduplication, rate limiting, and a grouped report. It stops short of defining what 'resolves' means (status codes, redirects) or clarifying network 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?

Two functional sentences carry the core action and behavior, with one short motivational sentence for context. Every sentence earns its place; the main functionality is front-loaded and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the crawl-and-check process, dedup/pacing behavior, and the report shape ('reports the pages that link to it'). It leaves minor gaps around result structure and the specific definition of a broken link, but the agent has enough to invoke it.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage (site start URL defaults to SEO_MCP_SITE, maxLinks and maxPages caps). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource chain: 'Crawl the site, collect its external links and check each one still resolves.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope as outbound/external links and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_orphan_pages and link_graph.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant: 'Outbound rot is invisible until someone clicks — sites move, shut down and reorganise, and nothing tells you.' This implies use when you suspect or want to verify external link health, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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