get_backlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that credits vary and an API key is required. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, if there are rate limits, what happens on insufficient credits, or any side effects. The description provides minimal transparency beyond obvious prerequisites.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with a prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a credential requirement, but lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error handling). An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed, but the description still falls short of providing sufficient context 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 has 3 parameters (domain, location, limit) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters; it only lists output fields. It does not explain what 'domain' expects (e.g., full URL or just domain), what 'location' values are valid (beyond a default), or what 'limit' controls. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get backlink profile' and lists the output fields (Domain Rating, total backlinks, referring domains). This provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_referring_domains', which likely returns a subset of this data, slightly reducing clarity.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the requirement for `VISIBLY_API_KEY` and suggests using `get_account_info` to check balance, but does not advise against using this tool when credits are low or indicate any specific scenarios where another tool would be better. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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