Internal link graph

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does state that the tool crawls the site and analyzes internal links, which implies read-only analysis, but it does not disclose potential resource usage, crawl behavior limits beyond schema parameters, or any side effects. The description adds some behavioral detail but leaves operational transparency incomplete.

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 sentences, front-loads the core action, and uses every clause to convey either the tool's function or its value proposition. There is no redundant filler, and the single-page audit contrast earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job of explaining what analysis is performed and what kind of conclusions it supports. The main gaps are the lack of explicit output format/return shape and absence of operational caveats such as crawl limits or timeout behavior, but the schema and the high-level output categories provide enough for confident invocation.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions for site, limit, maxDepth, and maxPages, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning to individual parameters, but it also does not need to because the schema is already descriptive. No meaningful parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource—'Crawl the site and analyse its internal links'—and goes further by naming the concrete analytical outputs: pages with most internal authority, important pages starved of it, and minor pages hoarding it. This clearly separates it from single-page audit tools and other link-related siblings.

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?

It gives a clear use case: answering 'is my linking pointing at the pages that matter.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with a single-page audit, which helps an agent avoid choosing audit_page. However, it does not mention other relevant alternatives like find_broken_links or find_orphan_pages, so it is not fully explicit about when not to use those.

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