backlinks_report

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that the call costs 0.15 USDC on Base via x402. However it says nothing about permissions, failure/refund behavior, or why confirmNewPurchase exists for re-purchases, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and output scope, with the cost appended parenthetically. No filler, nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately specifies the return shape (summary metrics plus top 25 referring domains) and notes the payment requirement. It stops short of describing what the summary metrics contain or how failures are handled, but it is largely sufficient for a simple report 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the domain/url aliases and the confirmNewPurchase warning). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (backlink profile) and states exactly what comes back (summary metrics plus top 25 referring domains). No sibling tool in the list covers backlinks, so it is naturally distinguishable, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like domain_rank or trust_check.

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 states what the tool produces but gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus sibling analytics tools such as domain_rank, trust_check, or competitors. The only situational hint is the price, which is a cost disclosure rather than usage direction.

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