get-broken-internal-links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial semantics beyond them: records can be months old, source_last_access_date == discovery_date signals no re-verification, and such rows are flagged stale/'never re-checked' with a warning not to treat the count as a live failure. That is genuine, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then dense but relevant caveats and routing instructions; nearly every clause carries information. Slightly long and cluttered with quoted tokens, keeping it just below ideal.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return-field semantics and staleness caveat an agent needs. The only omission is any mention of pagination behavior for limit/offset.

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 coverage is only 33% — host_id is documented but limit/offset are not. The description mentions source_last_access_date and discovery_date, but those are response fields, not parameters, so it adds no meaning for the three inputs. However, limit/offset are conventional pagination params with bounds in the schema and are self-explanatory, so the gap is minor rather than severe.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List broken internal links') and immediately enumerates what a record contains (destination URL, source page, last-checked time). It is unambiguous against siblings like get-external-links and get-broken-internal-links-history, which it names directly.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('user asks which internal links look broken and whether Yandex has rechecked them') and names two exclusions with their correct alternatives: history over time goes to get-broken-internal-links-history, links from other sites go to get-external-links.

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