Verified directory list

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions credit cost per day and free repeat calls, plus data curation (hand-verified, dead/nofollow removed). This goes beyond the annotations and provides practical operational details without contradicting them.

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 the core function, followed by usage context, data quality, and cost behavior. No redundant phrasing, every sentence earns its place. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete for a simple list-retrieval tool. It covers what the data is, when to use it, how to filter it, and cost implications. No additional needed context appears 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It mentions client-side filtering capabilities, which implies no parameters are required and the data is meant to be filtered locally. This aligns with the schema's empty fields and adds a hint about usage, so a baseline of 4 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 provides a hand-verified list of directories and launch platforms that give real backlinks. It specifies the verb (list) and the resource (directories/launch platforms), and distinguishes from sibling tools like research_backlinks by focusing on a curated directory list rather than analysis.

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 says 'Use when the user wants backlinks or launch exposure for a new product' and mentions filtering client-side. It gives clear context for when to invoke, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient but lacks exclusions.

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