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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds the batch limit (50 domains) as a behavioral constraint but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or return details. It complements annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Perfectly concise and direct.

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 simple batch lookup tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and batch limit. It does not explain return structure, but the simplicity and sibling context make it adequately complete for basic usage.

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 only specifies 'domains' as an array of strings with 0% coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying these are domains and limits the batch to 50. It does not detail format or validation rules, but for a single parameter this is reasonably compensative.

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 states the action (get backlinks), the resource (domains), and the batch scope (up to 50 at once), distinguishing it from sibling get_backlinks. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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?

The description implies batch usage through 'up to 50 domains at once' but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. It provides some usage context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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