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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the weighting basis, the proprietary web-scale index source, and the return shape (domain_rating-style score plus referring domain count). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by one sentence explaining provenance and return value. Every clause earns its place and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the score's intent, computation weighting, source, and return contents. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. A minor gap is that the score's scale or range is not specified, but this is not critical for selection and usage as currently specified.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with type and example ('Root domain, e.g. 'stripe.com''). The description's mention of 'domain' adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb-resource pair: 'Get an editorial-authority score for a domain.' It adds distinguishing detail by explaining the score is weighted toward high-trust wiki/edu/gov/news referrers from a proprietary link index, which separates it from sibling tools that return raw backlink lists or reports.

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 this tool is for holistic authority measurement, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose it over siblings like backlinks_for_domain or top_linkers_for_domain. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing cues. The context is clear only in a general sense.

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