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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds three genuinely useful behavioral facts: the job is idempotent, it lands in a waiting_human state, and no final submit button is pressed on the third-party site. That last clause is exactly the kind of side-effect boundary an agent needs on an open-world write tool. It stops short of saying what happens when an idempotencyKey is reused (new job vs. existing job returned), which would make it 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and the resulting state before the negative boundary clause. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 write tool with no output schema, the definition covers the safety boundary and the resulting state, but leaves gaps an agent must guess: what the call returns (a job id to poll?), what happens on a duplicate idempotencyKey, and which tool consumes the job afterward (record_backlink_submission_outcome). Adequate but not complete for a 5-parameter write tool with 40% schema coverage.

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 coverage is only 40%: sourceId and customUrl are documented in the schema (including their mutual exclusivity), but projectId, siteId, and idempotencyKey carry no schema descriptions. The description's 'idempotent' hints at the role of idempotencyKey but does not explain reuse semantics, and it says nothing about projectId/siteId scoping. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create one ... submission job') plus the resulting state ('in waiting_human state'), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It also draws a clear boundary ('does not click the third-party site's final submit button'), but it never names the sibling it replaces or complements (preflight_backlink_submission, record_backlink_submission_outcome), so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the submission must be 'reviewed' and the tool is a queuing step that stops short of the final click, which suggests a human-in-the-loop workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. preflight_backlink_submission or when-not-to-use, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a project/site that already exists.

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