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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: async job with polling (5-30s), return format with 'found_on' listing, and quota limits (50/month). Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by operational details and return info. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description adequately covers return format and execution behavior. Quota and async details are included. Slight improvement could mention output schema existence or pagination, but overall complete.

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%, with both parameters (my_domain, competitor_domains) well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool performs a competitor backlink gap analysis, specifically finding domains linking to competitors but not to the user's domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'backlinks' and 'gap_outreach_targets' by specifying the unique gap analysis functionality.

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 explains when to use the tool (to find linking domains) and provides context on async job execution and quota costs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, though the sibling list implies distinct use cases.

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