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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the per-row billing cost ($0.36 per row, up to 20 rows), the fact that 4xx/5xx responses are not charged, and that the response is semicolon-delimited text. These details are critical for an agent to assess cost, handle errors, and parse output correctly, and none of them are derivable from the annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the billing/format details compressed into the second. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff, and the structure makes it easy to scan for the purpose and key constraints.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed in the description. The description covers the purpose, pricing, row limit, error-charging policy, and response format, while annotations handle the read-only/idempotent safety profile. For a simple two-parameter read tool, this is a complete and sufficient definition.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Target domain or URL' and 'One of root_domain, domain, or url'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as format constraints, defaults, or interplay between the two parameters, 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?

The description identifies the resource (pages with backlinks) and the granularity (page-level breakdown), which is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_semrush_backlinks or get_semrush_backlinks_overview, forcing the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without a decision framework for picking this tool over similar backlink-related endpoints.

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