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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that returned records include quality, pricing, and link type, which is useful context, but it omits pagination behavior and the meaning of the view modes (available/recently_added/recently_removed) that materially affect what is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the 12-parameter surface.

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?

With 12 parameters (4 enums), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the view filters, pagination, sorting, or the required project/site scoping, which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only loosely gestures at sortBy (quality), pricingModels, and linkTypes, and says nothing about page, perPage, view, sortOrder, sourceType, accountRequirements, or the required projectId/siteId. Most parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Search') and resource ('library of directories and other backlink sources') and lists what the results carry (quality, pricing, link type). However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling list_backlink_submission_sources, leaving ambiguity about which 'sources' list is intended.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The verb 'Search' weakly implies browsing/filtering, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from list_backlinks or list_backlink_submission_sources when choosing a tool.

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