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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the response is a 'protected native handoff' that never includes the provider token or claim URL, and the call does not contact the provider. That security and side-effect profile is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct point (scope of read, what is withheld, non-equivalence to verification), with the scope statement front-loaded. Some jargon ('durable result', 'protected native handoff') is undefined but costs little space.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: secrecy guarantees, no provider contact, and the caveat that a draft is not verification. Only explicit routing against sibling backlink tools is absent.

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% and the sole plan_id parameter is already documented as an 'Exact saved original-key-bound provider draft plan identifier.' The description's phrase 'current key's saved ... plan' reinforces key binding but adds no new format, constraint, or lookup guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Read only the current key's saved public draft plan, approval and durable result.' It also carves out a scope distinction from backlink verification ('A created draft is not public backlink verification'), which helps separate it from report/verification siblings, though it never names a specific sibling tool.

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 is only implied: 'Read only' signals a retrieval operation, and 'Does not contact the provider or send again' scopes out the write path. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as webanto_get_backlink_attempt, webanto_get_directory_handoff, or the list_backlink_opportunities family, so an agent must infer selection from names.

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