Analyze backlinks

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that cache misses require API write scope and spend the project's own DataForSEO budget, that snapshots are cached for 24 hours, and that aggregate views should be computed from rows and treated as 'within fetched rows' only. This is critical operational knowledge not conveyed by readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction with 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 compact and information-dense, packing multiple important behaviors into a few sentences. It's somewhat dense and front-loaded but every sentence adds new information relevant to correct usage. Slightly packed, but no wasted words.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the most critical operational aspects: budget spending, caching, scoping, cost control workflow, and data interpretation caveats. It lacks a bit of clarity on the exact output schema structure but the return valuation summary is addressed. Given the complexity, this is reasonably complete.

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 the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description does add high-level guidance on estimate_only and max_cost_cents workflow, and clarifies the relationship between fresh and cache behavior, but most parameter semantics are already covered in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool analyzes backlinks and specifies what it returns: summary metrics, 12-month history, and per-link rows with new/lost status. It distinctively emphasizes the budget-consumption aspect, which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_cost_estimate or load_more_backlink_rows.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: call estimate_only first for a free dry run, then use max_cost_cents as a best-effort request guard. Also notes cache behavior (24-hour snapshots, fresh parameter to bypass). Differentiates between reading cached snapshots vs spending budget, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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