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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect concerns. The description adds minimal behavioral context by saying 'distribution', implying aggregated counts, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any nuance. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with only 2 parameters, and the description covers the core purpose. However, the lack of detail about the return format of the distribution and the 'limit' parameter means it does not fully equip an agent to understand what the output will look like. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minimum viable description but with noticeable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain both 'domain' and 'limit'. It only implies 'domain' ('for a domain') and gives no meaning to 'limit'. The parameter 'limit' is left completely unexplained, making the description insufficient to fully understand the 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 uses a specific verb 'get' and a resource 'anchor text distribution' for 'a domain', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_backlinks or get_referring_domains. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or mention that other tools might be more suitable for related analyses. The only context is the name itself, which gives us no insight into specific use cases.

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