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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the default vs. recent sorting behavior and the optional filters, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous information. Every clause adds value.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and sort modes, but it lacks details on the response structure, the limit parameter, and the exact format for filters like from_domain or link_type. This leaves gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for domain, sort, from_domain, link_type, and score, and explicitly explains the two sort enum values. However, it omits the limit parameter and does not explain the expected format/constraints for the filter parameters.

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 'Get backlinks for a domain' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining the two sort modes and optional filters, setting it apart from sibling tools like get_referring_domains or get_link_audit.

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?

The description implies usage contexts through the sort modes (importance for aggregated rows, recent for URL-level links), but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to use it over other link analysis tools. There is no 'instead of' guidance.

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