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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, and it meets it: it reveals that homepages are fetched live, that absence on the homepage is not proof of overall link removal ('not_found' meaning), and that the tool defaults to 8 linkers with a 15 max. This prevents common misinterpretations of results.

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?

Four compact sentences front-load the core behavior and the critical homepage-only caveat before the default limit. Each sentence adds a distinct fact with no filler.

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?

The description leaves little to guess: it defines the operation, the limitation, and the meaning of a key result value ('not_found'). It is not a 5 because there is no output schema and the description does not sketch the full response shape beyond that one status.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the limit default/max but does not deeply enrich the three parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise action ('Live-verify backlinks') against a specific resource (linking domains' homepages) and a concrete success criterion ('actual href... exists on each'). The real-time emphasis and homepage scope clearly separate it from static backlink-index siblings like backlinks_for_domain or top_linkers_for_domain.

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 phrase 'Complements the index with real-time proof' tells an agent when this tool adds value over static backlink reports. It clearly scopes results via 'Only homepages are fetched,' but stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or which sibling tool replaces it.

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