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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, scope is limited to ONE category, and handles are verified via identity resolution rather than search. It does not address failure modes or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the workflow, the content-reading alternative, and the handle-resolution note. Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be documented exhaustively, yet the description still previews the record shape. Combined with complete param coverage and the get_backlinks prerequisite workflow, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by defining the relational semantics of the two required params: `source` must be a category obtained from get_backlinks, and `target` is the same target passed to get_backlinks. That linkage meaningfully exceeds what the schema text conveys.

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 (List) and resource (backlink records), names what each record contains (author DID + verified handle + at:// URI, newest first), and characterizes the category scope with examples (liked, reposted, quoted, replied, mentioned, follows). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_backlinks (categories) and get_record (content), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: call get_backlinks first to obtain the category `source`, then pass it here. Also names the alternative and its trigger condition ('to read WHAT a referencing record says ... call get_record on its at:// URI'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are spelled out.

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