bing_backlink_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'paginadas desde 0', which duplicates the schema's page default/minimum of 0, and says nothing about page size, result caps, or how to detect the last page.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a paginated listing tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Low complexity (2 params, no nesting, no output schema) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the bar is modest. Still, a paginated listing tool should state the page size or termination condition so the agent knows how to iterate, and the description omits both.

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 coverage is 50%: siteUrl is documented in the schema, page is not. The phrase 'paginadas desde 0' does confirm zero-based paging, which slightly reinforces the page parameter, but it adds nothing the schema's default/minimum doesn't already imply and gives no page-size or offset semantics.

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?

States a specific resource and filter: site pages that receive inbound links, sourced from Bing. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling bing_backlink_sources (sources of links vs. pages receiving them), leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a verified property), and no reference to any alternative such as bing_backlink_sources or bing_url_info. The agent must guess which backlink tool to pick.

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