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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'Results are prioritized with risk notes flagging what needs attention.' The parenthetical '(may use lookups)' is vague and does not meaningfully clarify behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the tool's purpose and primary metrics in the first sentence. The second sentence adds necessary parameter context and output behavior. The only slight weakness is the vague parenthetical '(may use lookups),' which adds little value and could be clarified or removed.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description covers the key points: what data is returned, how to obtain project_id, and the fact that results include prioritized risk notes. It does not explicitly address sibling differentiation or the meaning of 'may use lookups,' but these are minor gaps given the available schema and annotations.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that project_id is 'a ranking id from list_projects,' which is essential semantic information not present in the schema. This gives an agent enough guidance to correctly source the parameter value.

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 clear verb and resource: it returns a backlink profile summary for a project, listing concrete metrics such as Domain Score, total backlinks, spam score, and anchor health. This is not a tautology and gives an agent a solid idea of what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_new_lost_backlinks, though the word 'summary' hints at a higher-level view.

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 provides a useful prerequisite by noting that project_id is a ranking id from list_projects, and it implies use for prioritized risk overviews with the phrase 'risk notes flagging what needs attention.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like get_new_lost_backlinks or get_project_overview, leaving the when-to-use guidance mostly implicit.

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