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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds rich domain semantics: it explains what 'owing our link back' signifies (checker believes the deal was a swap) and defines the four result categories. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 enumeration of result categories, then adds two clarifying sentences resolving jargon and pointing to answer_link. Dense but every sentence earns its place; only the run-on first sentence slightly burdens readability.

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 listing tool with no output schema and a single schema-documented parameter, the description thoroughly conveys what is returned and how to act on it. Pagination, ordering, and volume are not addressed, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (workspaceId) with 100% schema description coverage, including a pointer to get_status for listing sites. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema fully carries the load.

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 and resource (every placement/link the nightly checker has seen) and enumerates the exact categories returned: live links with follow status, unreadable pages, lost links, and won deals lacking links. This level of detail lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_keywords or list_blocklist without opening a schema.

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 routes a subset of results to an alternative: 'Answer the pages it could not read with answer_link.' Clearly signals when this tool must be paired with answer_link, though it stops short of stating when this tool should not be used instead of other link-related tools.

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