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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the non-charging behavior upfront ('no charge yet'), modal prerequisites ('requires own-content enabled'), and the required presence of target_url in every mode. It doesn't detail response formats or reversibility, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences pack a lot of information without excess. The purpose is front-loaded, and the mode breakdown is structured with clear punctuation. The density is high but justifiable given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 3 modes, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the required parameter groupings, prerequisites, and downstream actions. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but those are largely covered by the output schema absence and the schema descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining which parameter combinations are valid per mode: auto (donor_ids+target_url+keyword), prompt (+recommendations), own (target_url+content+optional title/article_url). This combinatorial logic is not present in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add backlink order(s) to your basket (no charge yet)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it stages orders, while publish_basket handles payment. The three modes (auto, prompt, own) further specify scope.

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 when-to-use guidance per mode and references sibling tools: 'fetch the editable base prompt with get_article_prompt first' and 'Then call publish_basket to pay from balance.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the mode selection and references to siblings give adequate context.

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