webmaster_list_broken_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not explain page semantics beyond 'one page', sampling behavior, or whether any quota or authorization constraints apply.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful guidance for brevity.

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 simple paginated read tool with an output schema and defaulted parameters, the one-line description plus schema gets an agent reasonably close to correct invocation. However, it is only minimally viable because it lacks parameter semantics and any routing guidance versus related broken-link tools.

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%, and the description names no parameters. It does not explain that host_id identifies the site, or that limit and offset control page size and position. The phrase 'one page' only weakly implies pagination and does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('broken internal link samples'), and adds 'one page' to signal pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like webmaster_get_broken_links_history or webmaster_list_external_links.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that history is available via webmaster_get_broken_links_history, nor does it state conditions like verified host or site ownership requirements.

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