Load more backlink rows

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses the snapshot_expired 409 behavior, the per-100-row provider rate, write-scope requirement, and the dependency on a prior analyze_backlinks call. However, the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation implied) and it doesn't detail what happens to the snapshot after loading rows (does it expire? does it cache?), rate limits beyond the stated 100-row step, or whether this consumes provider budget in a way distinct from the initial analysis. Reasonable transparency but some gaps remain.

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 sentences, zero filler. Front-loaded with the critical scope requirement and prerequisite. Every clause earns its place — the auth note, the rate, the error condition, and the prerequisite are all essential behavioral facts. Excellent conciseness.

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 pagination/extension tool with 100% schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential state-dependency (snapshot must exist and be unexpired), the prerequisite call, the auth requirement, and the error path. It doesn't explain the return format, but no output schema exists to reference and the tool's purpose is straightforward. Slightly incomplete around rate/budget implications for the provider, but this is a solid, well-rounded description for a moderately simple extension 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 all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds context about the snapshot-matching requirement for target and target_scope params, which helps. However, the description doesn't independently elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('extends the current unexpired backlinks snapshot at the per-100-row provider rate'), clearly distinguishing this pagination tool from siblings like analyze_backlinks (which creates the snapshot). Mentions the 409 snapshot_expired condition and explicitly directs to run analyze_backlinks first, further differentiating the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (run analyze_backlinks first), the failure condition (409 snapshot_expired when no current snapshot), and the condition of use ('current unexpired backlinks snapshot'). The 'Requires API write scope' note is clear guidance. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, it references analyze_backlinks as the necessary predecessor, giving strong usage direction.

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