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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the per-row billing ($0.36, up to 20 rows, header excluded), that 4xx/5xx are not charged, and that the response is semicolon-delimited text. These specifics help the agent understand cost and output format, exceeding the annotation coverage.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second covers billing and format. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational aspects: purpose, cost, row limit, and response format. It does not explain the exact structure of the anchor-text distribution output, but that is the output schema's job. The absence of usage guidance is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with examples and allowed values, covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, such as formatting constraints or interplay between target and target_type. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'anchor-text distribution of backlinks to a target', identifying the specific resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_semrush_backlinks (which likely lists raw backlinks) and get_semrush_backlinks_overview (which gives aggregate metrics). However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a distribution summary vs. raw anchor texts, leaving some ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_semrush_backlinks, get_semrush_backlinks_overview, or the DataForSEO post_dataforseo_backlinks_anchors_live). It only mentions billing and format, which are operational details, not usage context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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