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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the async nature, expected completion time, the ~10s polling limit, and the job_id fallback. It also notes quota consumption, which is a behavioral side effect not covered by annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the submission, async behavior, polling, and resume path. Each sentence adds critical operational detail, and the structure guides the agent from what → how → what-if.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior (full gap list or job_id) and the follow-up action. It covers async timing, quota, and invocation parameters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and handle the result is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description only echoes the parameter constraints ('1–5 competitor domains') already in the schema, without adding new meaning about formats, defaults, or edge cases. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'find domains linking to your competitors but NOT to you.' It clearly identifies this as backlink gap analysis and distinguishes it from related tools like crawlgraph_backlinks and crawlgraph_gap_outreach_targets. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 explicitly states the required input ('Submit your domain + 1–5 competitor domains'), the async job behavior, and the polling timeout. It also names the alternative path for long-running jobs ('resume via crawlgraph_gap_status'), which is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guideline. The quota note adds practical usage context.

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