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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description usefully adds that the page is created asynchronously and that the returned import_id is checked via a sibling tool, plus the authenticated-creator scope. Rate limits or failure behavior are not described, keeping this below 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the async/return detail, then the availability constraint. No filler.

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 need not be explained, yet the description still notes the import_id handoff to link_in_bio_get_import_status. Combined with the precondition and auth scope, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 both parameters (source_url, language) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the source concept ('public Linktree or Beacons page') and adds no format or enum nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue import of a public Linktree or Beacons page') for a defined actor (authenticated creator). The constraint 'Only available when no page exists' cleanly separates it from link_in_bio_create without needing to name it.

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 a clear precondition ('Only available when no page exists') and routes the agent to link_in_bio_get_import_status for follow-up. It stops short of explicitly naming link_in_bio_create as the alternative when a page already exists.

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