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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (openWorld, destructive, non-idempotent), so the description's added value is real: result ordering ('strongest first'), the grouping behavior, and notably the credit cost with a pointer to Add-ons. It does not contradict the annotations; it enriches them with cost and output-shape context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and grouping behavior, then cost. The middle sentence ('authority you already earned and are currently throwing away') is marketing flourish, but the remaining text is dense and earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry safety. The description covers purpose, grouping, and cost adequately for a 3-param tool, but the total absence of parameter semantics leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and falls short: it hints that 'target' is a domain (own or competitor) but says nothing about 'limit' or 'refresh', both of which exist with defaults. Two of three parameters are unexplained anywhere.

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+resource ('Broken backlinks') and immediately defines the exact condition that distinguishes it from the generic backlink siblings (seo_backlinks, seo_backlink_list): links landing on 404/410/5xx and grouped by the dead URL. An agent can pick this over the plain backlink-list tools without opening any schema.

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 gives clear usage contexts: recover authority on your own domain, or use it on a competitor's domain for outreach. It does not, however, name a specific alternative or state when NOT to use it versus seo_backlinks/seo_backlink_list, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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