Competitor backlink gap analysis

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

Description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating it 'costs one gap job against the monthly quota', which is a side effect. This is a clear contradiction, so score is 1 per rubric.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then async behavior, quota, and output. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Covers purpose, async polling duration, quota cost, and output structure (found_on field). Output schema exists so return details are not required. Complete for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool finds domains linking to competitors but not to you, using specific verb 'run' and resource 'competitor backlink gap analysis'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'backlinks' and 'gap_outreach_targets' by its unique focus on gap identification.

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?

Usage is implied (run when you want to find backlink gaps) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. The quota mention gives cost context but no alternatives are named.

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