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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), it discloses cost ('FREE, no credits'), a prerequisite credential (BING_WEBMASTER_API_KEY), and two concrete failure envelopes ({ ok: false, reason: 'not_configured' } and 'no_matching_site'), plus the edge case of verified sites returning empty data. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the core identity ('GetUrlLinks: the inbound links...') and each subsequent sentence carries real information (cost, scope limits, key requirement, error shapes). It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is 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 fully: it names the returned fields (anchor text + source URL) and the error response shapes, and flags the empty-result caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this 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% — url, page, and projectId are all documented in the schema, including the 0-based pagination and the pointer to list_projects for the ID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that it targets one specific page, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource — inbound links (anchor text + source URL) pointing at one specific page on a project's matched Bing site — which distinguishes it from site-wide siblings like get_bing_backlinks and get_backlinks_overview. An agent can tell exactly what it fetches without opening the schema.

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?

Clear context: it's the per-URL Bing look, own-site only, with an explicit exclusion ('Bing exposes no competitor/any-domain backlink lookup'). It also warns that some verified sites return empty results. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives an agent should use for competitor or site-wide backlink data, leaving that inference to the agent.

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