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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the tool uses only buyer-supplied information, performs no external actions, returns a draft for review, costs 0.25 USD, and requires explicit wallet authorization. While destructiveHint is true, the payment warning is consistent with that annotation, and the 'no outbound actions' line prevents misreading the tool as modifying external systems.

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 four short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, then adds scope constraints, output format, price, and authorization requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested required input object, the description is too high-level for a correct invocation. It does not explain how to supply URLs or authorization details, nor does it clarify the payment-signature mechanism. The agent knows what the tool produces but not enough about how to call it 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 0%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain the relationship between 'brief,' 'source_text,' and 'audience,' nor how the payment and signature fields (payment_signature, result_signature, result_expires, idempotency_key) should be populated. An agent is left to infer field semantics from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Recommend links among supplied URLs with anchor text, relevance rationale, and implementation priority.' This clearly identifies the deliverable and distinguishes it from sibling content-generation and SEO tools by emphasizing buyer-supplied URLs and no external research.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a buyer has supplied URLs and wants an internal-link draft, with no external research or outbound actions. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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