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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and it discloses what content is included (status and published URL). However, it does not mention any authentication needs, response formatting, or other behavioral details, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key output details.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It could mention pagination or sorting, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity. Missing details are minor.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here since no additional parameter detail is required.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('ordered backlinks') and states the returned fields ('status and published URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like order_backlink and publish_basket by focusing on listing ordered backlinks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without mentioning exclusions or context where another sibling would be more appropriate.

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