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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world write. The description adds genuine value beyond them with 'Runs in the background', signalling an async job rather than an inline result. However, it omits what the job produces, how progress is polled, or any auth/rate constraints.

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, well front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the parameter surface it accompanies.

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?

A write-capable tool with 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema should explain more than when-and-what; here nothing covers inputs or what the background job yields. Inadequate given the schema complexity.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: the goal enum, refresh flag, and competitorDomains max-8 limit are all unmentioned. It does not help the agent understand required inputs or constraints.

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+resource: finding prospects among sites linking to given competitor domains. This is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling start_prospect_discovery, leaving the agent to guess which discovery job applies.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of when to prefer start_prospect_discovery, start_backlink_inventory, or get_prospect_discovery. Usage is only implied by the name.

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