get_new_lost_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what the return format looks like (list of backlinks with what fields?), whether results are paginated, or what 'recently' means (timeframe). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate. For a tool that returns backlink data (potentially complex structured data), the description doesn't explain what information is returned about each backlink, how results are organized, or what 'recently' means temporally. With 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description is insufficient for understanding what the tool actually produces.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'domain to analyze' which aligns with the 'item' parameter, and 'new or lost backlinks' which aligns with the 'mode' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'recently gained or lost backlinks for a domain', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_backlinks' or 'get_ref_domains', which likely provide different backlink-related data. The description is specific about what type of backlinks (new/lost) but doesn't clarify how this differs from other available tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_backlinks', 'get_ref_domains', and 'get_anchor_text' available, there's no indication of when this specific tool (focused on new/lost backlinks) is appropriate versus those other backlink-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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