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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns current plan and link placement info and mentions upgrade guidance, which implies a read-only informational behavior. It doesn't state whether it mutates anything or whether it requires authentication, but for a zero-parameter account status tool, the description is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the content summary and then the trigger condition. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns and when to call it. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but that's not required without an output schema. It could mention that it's read-only, but the content summary implies that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description explains what the tool reports, which is the only relevant semantic content. Baseline 4 for zero params 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 states a clear purpose: it reports current plan, links placed, and how to upgrade. It also names the trigger conditions ('credits, pricing or limits'), which helps an agent recognize when to call it. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like upgrade, but the resource ('account') and content summary are specific enough.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call it when the user asks about credits, pricing or limits.' This is clear usage guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like upgrade, but the trigger list is actionable and sufficient for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool verifies with the hosted engine and saves the key, and that all hosted tools become available afterward. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the key is invalid, 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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the primary action front-loaded. It avoids fluff and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and effect.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, the source of the key, and the consequence of activation. It does not mention return values or edge cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate. It does provide a hint about the key format ('le_...') and indicates it can be either a subscription key or a personal MCP link, but it does not fully explain validation rules or how to obtain a valid key. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but is not comprehensive.

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 action: activating a subscription key or personal MCP link, with verification and saving. It specifies the resource type and effect (making hosted tools available), and is distinct from sibling tools like search_sites or verify_link, which have different purposes.

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 gives clear context by mentioning the purchase success page as the source of the key, implying the tool is used after purchase. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral context: status meanings ('placed means verified live; gated means a captcha appeared'), a concrete retry action (headless=false or skip), and explicit instruction to ask the user when gated. This goes well beyond what any structured field provides.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by edge-case status handling and user interaction guidance. Every clause 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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains status outcomes and captcha handling well, but it does not define parameters or describe the exact return format (e.g., what the 'method' looks like, how the proof screenshot is returned). Adequate for basic use, with clear gaps.

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 must compensate. It only adds meaning to headless (via the retry guidance), while slug, target_url, anchor_text, and description are left undefined. Even required parameters like slug and target_url are genuinely ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build one backlink in a browser on this machine' with a clear scope (login-free sites: shorteners and open submit forms) and an artifact (proof screenshot). It also distinguishes behavior from the sibling get_method by noting that on other sites it returns a method to follow.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to login-free sites and tells the agent what happens on other sites ('returns the method for you to follow'). It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use/alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content of the response but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication/upgrade, has side effects, or how errors are handled.

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 sentence with no filler and captures the core output components. It is reasonably front-loaded, though the dense clause structure makes it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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 one-parameter read-style tool, the description conveys the essential output contents. However, it omits how slug should be supplied/resolved, whether account or upgrade state is relevant, and what the actual response shape is, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The schema has one parameter, slug, with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'one site', implying slug identifies the site, but it does not explain slug format, how to obtain it, or validation expectations. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 indicates the tool returns a site-specific method/playbook, including link type, requirements, ordered actions, and the action that places the link. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like build_link or verify_link, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as build_link or verify_link. The phrase 'for one site' weakly implies the slug parameter selects a site, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, informational output about free vs subscription contents, but does not specify the return format, side effects, or any other behavioral nuances. Minimal transparency beyond the surface meaning.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core content and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description gives a general sense of the content but omits details an agent might need, such as the format of the summary (text, list, etc.) or how detailed the information is. It is adequate for a very simple informational tool but not fully complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying what the tool's content covers (free list and subscription additions), which is useful even though there are no parameters to document.

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 conveys the subject matter—what the free list contains and what a subscription adds—but lacks a direct verb or explicit statement of the operation (e.g., 'Returns a summary...'). It is not tautological and hints at the tool's informational purpose, but it is vague about the exact action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is a standalone phrase with no indication of the scenario in which this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only defines inclusion criteria ('built or logged on this machine') and does not mention read-only behavior, sorting, pagination, defaults, or error cases.

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 text is short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. A tool description needs enough substance to guide selection and invocation; a fragmentary statement is not appropriately sized.

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 simple one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still leaves out essential context: whether this is a read-only list, how limit behaves, and what the returned links actually look like. The statement is too sparse to support confident 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 should compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter. It does not mention limit at all, leaving default behavior, maximum values, and ordering unclear.

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 identifies the resource as 'every link built or logged on this machine,' which conveys scope and content, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'retrieves.' It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like search_sites or log_link.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what is included, without stating when to choose list_results over search_sites or other sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that status can be 'placed (verified live), unverified, manual or failed', which is useful, but it does not state whether this is a write operation, any permissions required, the side effects, or the response format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and structured effectively, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the required fields, the meaning of most parameters, any return values, or the expected behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'status' values but provides no meaning for slug, target_url, live_url, notes, or anchor_text. This is a severe gap for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource as 'a link you placed', with status options that clarify the action. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like build_link and verify_link by focusing on logging rather than creation or verification, though it does not name alternatives.

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 for recording placed links but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent would have to infer that this is for logging placements, with no comparison to other tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include auto_build-marked entries and locked higher-DA matches, and instructs the agent to offer a subscription for locked ones. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'Search' implies a non-mutating operation, and it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare definition.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral notes and a method list in a compact form. It is efficient with no filler, though the method list adds length; still, it 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?

For a search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main use case and result handling (free vs locked). However, it leaves the limit parameter undefined and does not describe the output structure, pagination, or error cases, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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 must compensate. It mentions filterable fields (name, domain, method, DA, dofollow) that map to query, method, min_da, and dofollow_only, and lists valid method values. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely, leaving its meaning to inference.

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 (Search) and resource (free list of 25 backlink sites) with clear filter dimensions (name, domain, method, DA, dofollow). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on searching the free list rather than building, verifying, or logging links.

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 its use as the search tool and explains how to handle locked results (offer subscription), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_results or get_method. It gives contextual guidance for interpreting results but lacks explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Returns the payment links and what to do after paying,' which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose whether the upgrade is immediate, idempotent, or requires authentication, nor what happens to existing subscriptions.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('The subscription'). It avoids fluff but is slightly informal in phrasing ('every one of 1,245 sites'), which adds specificity but could be seen as unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks details on the process flow after payment, any prerequisites, or the relationship to sibling tools like 'activate' or 'account', which may be needed for correct usage in complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, so the description doesn't need to document them. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns payment links and post-payment steps, which is beyond what an empty schema conveys.

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 that the tool relates to upgrading 'the subscription' for sites and engine, with billing periods. It is clear enough for a tool named 'upgrade', distinguishing it from siblings like 'activate' or 'account', though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing account) or situations where 'activate' or 'account' would be more appropriate. The context is implied by the word 'upgrade' but not elaborated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches a live page and checks for the target URL, anchor text, and nofollow status, which is transparent about the core behavior. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., network requests, rate limits) or what happens when the link is not found, which would be useful for a tool that performs live fetching.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Fetch a live page') and then lists the specific verification checks. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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 verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core checks but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., boolean, structured result), how to interpret the nofollow check, or edge cases like redirects or page load failures. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'target URL' and 'anchor text' which map to the target_url and anchor_text parameters, but it doesn't explain the live_url parameter beyond the general 'Fetch a live page' context. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully clarify the role of each parameter, especially anchor_text which is optional.

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 fetches a live page and confirms a backlink, specifying the exact checks: target URL present as a hyperlink, anchor text, and nofollow status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_link and log_link by focusing on verification rather than creation or logging, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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: use this tool when you need to verify a backlink on a live page. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_sites or list_results, but the verification-focused language provides enough context for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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