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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that results come from web search and that mentions are classified as linked or unlinked relative to the supplied domain, with unlinked mentions framed as backlink opportunities.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the domain-classification behavior.

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 three-parameter search tool with annotations covering safety and openness, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It does not describe the exact return fields or result structure, but the core output—mentions with linked/unlinked classification—is implied.

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 100%, so the schema already documents brand, limit, and domain clearly. The description adds some meaning around the domain parameter by explaining the linked/unlinked classification, but it does not add information about brand or limit beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: finding linked and unlinked brand mentions across the web via search results. It is clearly distinct from siblings like verify_page_links or find_competitor_link_sources, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

It explains the conditional behavior when a domain is supplied, which implies how to use the domain parameter. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as find_competitor_link_sources or find_prospects, and no exclusions are stated.

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