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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content scope — it discloses that results include broken backlinks, month-over-month new/lost deltas, and a competitor link gap, which is not inferable from annotations or the schema. It says nothing about volume, time range defaults, or rate limits, but an output schema exists so return shape needn't be described.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core definition ('the sites that link to yours') and then itemizing the contents. Dense with colons and commas but every clause names real returned data, so nothing is filler. Slightly list-like to read, but no wasted sentences.

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 a single fully-documented parameter, an output schema, and complete read-only annotations, the only thing the description must supply is what content the tool surfaces — and it does so exhaustively, including the non-obvious link-gap and broken-backlink sets. Nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in detail, including the fallback behavior when omitted and the multi-site requirement. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies — the schema carries this dimension entirely.

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 enumerates the specific data returned — linking sites, backlinks, broken backlinks, new/lost month over month, and the link-gap set (competitor-only linkers). That is far more specific than the title 'Read your backlinks' and lets an agent tell it apart from get_competitors or get_google_overview. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists'), so it reads as a noun phrase rather than an action statement.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling read tools (get_competitors, get_google_overview, get_what_changed). The month-by-month and link-gap content hints at scope, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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