bing_backlink_sources

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 covered. The description's only added context is the data source (Bing rather than GSC), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about result caps, pagination depth, or whether the two URL inputs must match.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than truly concise, since nothing about usage or paging is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the shape and volume of results (backlink URL + anchor per row) and the paging contract, but does neither. For a three-parameter, open-world reporting tool, this leaves the agent guessing about result limits.

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 67% and the undocumented parameter is `page`, which controls pagination with a 0–32767 range — the description says nothing about paging or how many link sources are returned per call. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's own siteUrl/link 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 names a specific resource — the URLs and anchor texts that link to a given site page, per Bing — so an agent knows what data comes back. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and never contrasts itself with the close sibling bing_backlink_pages, so the purpose is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus bing_backlink_pages, bing_url_info, or any GSC equivalent. No prerequisites (verified property, Bing Webmaster auth) or exclusion conditions are stated.

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