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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds that backlinks are matched automatically and there is nothing to trigger, setting the expectation that this tool performs no action. It also discloses a bounded result of the last 20 backlinks. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: return payload, usage context, and parameter condition. The most important information is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, the single optional input parameter is well documented, and annotations cover safety. The description adds usage context and parameter guidance, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents website_id as optional and sourced from get_account. The description reinforces when to pass it (accounts with several websites), but this is essentially the same information, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns the website's backlink exchange status and enumerates the exact contents: Domain Rating, credit balance, status counts, and last 20 backlinks with linking site, anchor, and target page. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like check_backlinks, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a direct use case: report on link building progress, and notes that backlinks are matched automatically with nothing to trigger, telling an agent this is a passive read rather than an action. It does not mention when to prefer sibling tools such as check_backlinks, so no exclusions are given.

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