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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description goes beyond them with concrete behavior: observations are capped at twenty newest, evidence_window signals retained-but-omitted history, and the call consumes no inference credits. It does not discuss authorization or error conditions, keeping it short of a 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?

Content is front-loaded and dense with no filler, but the lead sentence packs five deliverables and jargon like 'originating-key attempt' and 'wire budget' into one clause chain, which costs some readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still supplies the interpretive context an agent needs (evidence vs tracker status, historical verified_at, truncation signaling). Only the relationship to sibling backlink getters is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about attempt_id beyond implying it scopes to a single saved attempt.

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 names a specific verb (Read) and enumerates exactly what is returned for one attempt: the public-field plan, approval URL, receipt, and newest observations. It is clearly distinct from list-style siblings, though it never names the nearby backlink siblings (draft/profile/submission_pack) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Guidance is interpretive rather than selective: it tells the agent how to read the payload (tracker status is not evidence, verified_at is historical, check the latest observation) and what the tool does not do (no external fetch, no inference spend). There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-backlink-getter statement.

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