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

The description frames the endpoint purely as a data provider ('will provide you with detailed summary data... you will get comprehensive summary data'), i.e. a read/query operation, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description therefore contradicts the declared behavioral profile and adds no reconciliation, so it scores 1 under the contradiction rule.

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?

Two focused sentences with the main behavior front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first (both describe backlink summary data), keeping it below a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the schema carries the parameter detail. However, for a tool sitting among many near-identical backlinks endpoints, the description omits the routing information an agent needs to select it correctly.

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 description coverage for the single top-level 'body' parameter is reported as 0%, but the nested item schema documents every field (target, limit, filters, order_by, rank_scale, etc.) in detail. The description only restates the target domain/subdomain/page convention that the schema already specifies, so it neither compensates nor detracts — a baseline 3.

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 states a concrete verb (provide summary data) and resource (backlinks/metrics for each page of a target domain or subdomain), and the phrase 'for each page' distinguishes it from the domain-level summary sibling. It stops short of naming the close siblings (e.g. summary_live, bulk_pages_summary_live) for an explicit contrast, so it lands at 4.

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 only usage cue is the implicit case 'if you indicate a single page as a target' — there is no guidance on when to pick this over post_dataforseo_backlinks_summary_live or post_dataforseo_backlinks_domain_pages_live, nor any note on prerequisites or alternatives among the ~30 sibling tools.

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