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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding what annotations cannot: no API call is made, no cost is incurred, results come from a cached answer, and the no-data case returns a message rather than an error or empty set.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity and the cost caveat, then a compact colon-list of returned fields, then the interpretation rule. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical '(redirect or restore it)' borders on advisory filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (status, title, referring domains, backlinks, broken backlinks, first seen) and the empty-state behavior. Pagination/ordering is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a list tool with a limit parameter.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented including the domain default and the errorsOnly filter. The description only lightly reinforces semantics via 'the client's own pages' and the error-status discussion; it adds no format, ordering, or limit guidance beyond the schema.

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 the specific resource ('the client's own pages that links point to') and the concrete fields returned, which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_referring_domains (source side) and run_link_lookup (fresh fetch). It never names an alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

Clearly frames the cheap path: read from the STORED DataForSEO answer, no new request and no charge, and states the fallback ('with no stored answer it says so'). It also gives an interpretive use case (status >= 400 pages are reclaim candidates). It stops short of naming the tool to call when fresh data is needed.

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