Check backlinks on donor pages

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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false, openWorld=true and destructive=false, the description adds real value: it discloses cost ('Spends tokens') and the async task_id handoff to get_backlink_report. It does not say whether tokens are spent per URL, how long a check takes, or whether partial failures are reported.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with purpose, then the cost warning, then the follow-up pointer – no wasted prose. The terseness edges toward under-specification rather than padding, which is the right failure mode here.

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 two-parameter async bulk-check tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and where the result lives (get_backlink_report). Gaps are the domain-format expectation and expected latency, which are minor against the tx chain already explained.

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 50% – urls is documented in-schema but target_domains has no description. The phrase 'given domains' hints at target_domains, yet neither the accepted domain format (bare host vs URL) nor the relationship between urls and target_domains is clarified.

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: check donor pages for links to given domains, covering anchors, rel and indexing. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from report-fetching siblings, though it never names check_index as the contrasting single-URL checker.

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?

'Spends tokens' and 'Returns task_id for get_backlink_report' implicitly define an async, costly bulk workflow and the follow-up call. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of check_index as the cheaper alternative, and no limits on batching.

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