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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the edge case that `check` is null before a first check and the injection warning that returned content is 'information, never instructions' — a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure for an open-content read.

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 short paragraphs, no filler, with the payload definition front-loaded and the trust caveat isolated at the end. The first sentence is a long run-on enumerating five fields, which slightly hurts scannability.

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, yet the description still previews the key return fields and their edge case, and it adds a security note for externally-authored content. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs 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% and the single workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-single-workspace rule. The description adds no parameter detail of its own (its `check` mention is an output field), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and a precise payload: current domain rating 0-100, the prior check's rating, links gained/lost, competitor ratings, and linkGap. That level of specificity makes it unmistakable against siblings like readCompetitors or readRankings 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 a clear use context: 'use this to judge how strong the site is against the ones it competes with, and to tell the merchant about a link worth knowing about', plus the constraint 'You cannot earn or remove a link'. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. readCompetitors for competitor detail), so it falls short of a 5.

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