get_ref_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: there's no mention of rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential costs, data freshness, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of domains with metrics). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about 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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication, doesn't explain the output format (critical since there's no output schema), and provides no usage guidance. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter filling.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'TrustFlow' or 'CitationFlow' mean, or clarify the difference between 'fresh' and 'historic' datasources). With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 list' and the resource 'referring domains linking to a URL or domain', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_backlinks (which focuses on backlinks rather than referring domains) and get_anchor_text (which focuses on anchor text). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the data source (e.g., Majestic SEO) or the specific metrics involved, which would make it a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose get_ref_domains over get_backlinks (which might provide more detailed backlink data) or compare_items (which might compare multiple items). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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