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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content details (what metrics are included) and a concrete behavioral edge case: 'found=false when a domain is outside the top 10M and the Majestic Million.' It does not cover rate limits, auth, or batch execution behavior, keeping it from being 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary returned metrics and then gives a single edge-case sentence about found=false. It is dense but every clause earns its place by listing output fields, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned and explains the found=false condition. However, it leaves sortBy and minScore unexplained, provides no usage context relative to dataset_info, and says nothing about request scope or rate limits, so it is only partially complete for a three-parameter bulk tool.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It repeats that domains can be domains, URLs, or emails and that the range is 1-50, which the schema already states, but says nothing about sortBy (enum input/score) or minScore. The description fails to add meaning for the two undocumented parameters.

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 clearly identifies the resource: authority metrics (score, Common Crawl rank, Majestic Million rank, referring subnets/IPs) for 1-50 domains, URLs, or emails. It implies a retrieval operation without naming an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from the sibling dataset_info tool, so it is clear but lacks sibling routing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'for 1-50 domains, URLs or emails' implies bulk domain lookup, but the description never tells the agent when this tool is preferable to dataset_info or any other approach.

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