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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that no charge occurs yet, that own-content mode requires special account permission, and that payment happens later via publish_basket. However, it does not describe what the API returns (e.g., order IDs, basket state) or mention potential side effects like overwriting existing drafts, leaving some behavioral 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, compact paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then efficiently enumerates the three modes. Every sentence contributes essential information (modes, prerequisites, next step), with no redundancy or filler. The use of parentheses and inline parameter lists keeps it readable despite the complexity.

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 tool with three modes and eight parameters, the description covers the different usage scenarios, required inputs per mode, and the payment flow via publish_basket. It lacks explicit explanation of return values (no output schema exists), potential errors, or idempotency behavior, but the core operational context is well covered. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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?

While the schema provides 100% description coverage, the description adds critical semantic meaning by grouping parameters into operational modes: auto (donor_ids + target_url + keyword), prompt (adds recommendations), and own (target_url + content, with optional title/article_url). This mode-based grouping clarifies relationships and constraints that the schema alone does not convey.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add backlink order(s) to your basket' with the key qualifier 'no charge yet'. It uniquely identifies the resource (backlink orders in a basket) and differentiates from siblings like publish_basket (payment) and get_article_prompt (fetching prompt).

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance by detailing three content modes (auto, prompt, own) with exact parameter combinations for each. It also directs the user to prerequisite actions ('fetch the editable base prompt with get_article_prompt first') and the follow-up step ('call publish_basket to pay'), making it clear when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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