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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the operation safe, the description adds useful behavioral detail: the output is delivered one phase at a time in a defined order, and each row contains the submission page plus, for a project, any already-recorded listing. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences carry purpose, default behavior, scope, and row contents without redundancy. Every clause adds information, and the most important identity of the tool comes first.

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 list tool with a complete input schema, the description supplies a partial return-value picture (submission page and recorded listing per row), which is important because there is no output schema. It does not describe paging across offset or max results, but those are already documented in parameters, leaving only minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning: it restates the default phase and clarifies row contents, but limit, offset, min_dr, category, and unrecorded_only are left to the schema's already-complete descriptions.

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 identifies the resource: directories ("Places that give a startup a backlink") and says the tool returns them "one phase at a time in the order that works." The title and name make the list semantics obvious, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_directory or other siblings in the description itself.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it is the tool for seeing the backlink directories per phase, and "Default phase bl-sprint" gives the common entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement, so the agent must infer the conditions from the phase and filter parameters.

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