searchatlas_authority_building

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'link building and digital PR' activities but doesn't describe what the tool does behaviorally—e.g., whether it executes outreach, generates reports, requires authentication, has rate limits, or modifies data. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential mutative actions, as it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format.

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, efficient phrase that front-loads the purpose. However, it's slightly under-specified for clarity, as it could benefit from a more specific verb to enhance understanding without adding unnecessary length.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, which is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and potential complex operations like link building. More context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters (message, project_id, playbook_id, plan_mode) with descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters relate to link building activities. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Link building and digital PR — outreach, guest posts, and authority signals' states a general purpose (link building/digital PR) and lists activities (outreach, guest posts, authority signals), but it's vague about what the tool actually does—whether it initiates, manages, or analyzes these activities. It doesn't specify a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'execute link building campaigns' or 'analyze authority signals'), and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'searchatlas_run_playbook' or 'searchatlas_content' that might overlap in SEO-related functions.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions activities but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'searchatlas_run_playbook' and 'searchatlas_content', there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, leaving usage unclear.

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