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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot express: previews consume nothing, confirmation draws on the account's plan, and each link is billed as one lookup. It does not address what happens to partially covered sets beyond the schema's accept_partial, or any rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the batch scope and then the call protocol. The billing note is compressed into a single clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return content ('what CrateWire already found and what the new scans would use from this account's plan'), which is exactly what an agent needs before the confirmation call. It omits how long previews remain valid and what a partial result looks like, but is otherwise sufficient for a quota-consuming mutation.

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 links, confirm, preview_id and accept_partial are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the preview/confirm relationship between preview_id and confirm but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Check a list of up to 10 posts and 5 DJ sets at once') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular scan_link sibling by emphasizing batch scope. It never names the singular alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It spells out the two-call protocol precisely: the first call is a preview that 'starts nothing', and the second call must pass preview_id plus confirm: true to actually start scans. An agent knows exactly when each invocation mode applies and that the first call is safe.

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