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

It goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that results are domain-level heuristics, not confirmed toxic links, that no per-link URL/anchor data is provided, and that each row is only a candidate for review. The Google disavow caution further clarifies the intended non-destructive usage. This is rich behavioral context that materially changes how an agent would use the result.

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 dense but purposeful: it front-loads the core action, then limitations, then safety guidance, then quotas. Each clause earns its place, though the first sentence is long and packed. No filler or repetition, and it remains readable despite its richness.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: what the tool returns (domain rows, not links), which heuristics are used, what is intentionally omitted (per-link URL/anchor), account limit differences, and the disavow caution. It does not describe the exact return fields or pagination, but for a single-parameter heuristic audit tool this is near-complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds a little context by calling it a domain's linkers, but doesn't add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource (scans a domain's linkers, flags spammy disavow candidates) and lists concrete heuristics (abused TLDs, spam keywords, hyphen/keyword stuffing, outbound counts). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool find_link_prospects by calling itself 'the inverse', making its position among siblings unmistakable.

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 names an alternative (find_link_prospects) and clarifies when not to use this tool ('use this to audit, not to auto-disavow'). It also implies the primary use case: reviewing domains flagged as toxic linker candidates. It doesn't explicitly contrast against other sibling tools like common_linkers or top_linkers_for_domain, so a small gap remains.

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