webmaster_list_broken_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'one page' pagination trait, but leaves unexplained what a 'sample' contains, how samples are ordered, or whether results are capped by the service.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but it is structurally clean.

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 output schema means return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a three-parameter list tool at 0% schema coverage, the description omits pagination mechanics and host scoping, leaving real gaps.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails. 'One page' hints that offset/limit exist, but neither is named, and the required host_id is never mentioned, leaving parameter meaning to be guessed from the schema alone.

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 (read) and resource (broken internal link samples) plus a pagination scope ('one page'). An agent can distinguish it from webmaster_get_broken_links_history by the 'samples' vs 'history' framing, though the description never names that sibling or clarifies what a 'sample' is.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the closely related webmaster_get_broken_links_history tool. The only signal is the resource itself, so usage is entirely inferred.

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