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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a per-URL table, includes specific metrics, supports a batch of URLs, and enforces a free-tier limit of 3 URLs per call. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: the action, the resource, the output shape, and the call limit. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral detail is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the return table fields, the input relationship, and the free-tier limit. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the output columns. It could still benefit from clarifying what 'N' means more explicitly, though the free-tier sentence largely resolves this.

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%, with both parameters minimally described ('Referring page URLs' and 'Domain the backlinks should point at'). The tool description adds some semantic context—target_domain is the single domain against which referring pages are checked—but does not substantially elaborate beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('referring pages against one target domain'), and an explicit output shape ('per-URL table: HTTP status, dofollow/nofollow, anchor text, robots guards'). This distinguishes link_audit from sibling tools like link_check or robots_guard_check, which appear narrower in scope.

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 description implies usage: audit a list of backlinks and get per-URL metrics, and it adds a practical constraint ('Free tier: 3 URLs per call'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as link_check or robots_guard_check, nor does it mention exclusions.

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