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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'v1 stub' caveat, which is useful context, but it does not describe return format, time-frame assumptions, or other behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence that begins with the action verb 'Get' and delivers the core purpose without redundancy. The 'v1 stub' parenthetical is efficiently included.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and good annotations, but there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the response shape or the exact time unit for the rate. The 'v1 stub' label partially mitigates this by warning of potential limitations, but the agent still has limited context.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter. The description does not explain what the parameter means, expected format, or constraints. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's function: obtaining the rate of new/lost links over time. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_new_links and get_lost_links, which focus on the links themselves, and the 'v1 stub' note adds an honest status indicator.

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 the tool is used when you need link velocity trends, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_link_audit or get_new_links. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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