backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two output shapes (counts vs linking pages/anchors), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or side effects (though it is clearly a read operation). Significant 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core dual behavior without waste. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage across three parameters, the description is too thin. It omits pagination, output format details, and any prerequisite or permission context, leaving the agent under-informed for calling the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It implicitly maps 'url' to the per-URL mode and 'site_url' to the site-wide mode, but the 'page' parameter (integer, default 0) is entirely unexplained, leaving a clear gap.

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 states a specific resource ('backlinks') and two modes of operation: site-wide inbound link counts versus linking pages and anchors for a single URL. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like traffic_trend or crawl_health, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use each mode — omit 'url' for site-wide counts, provide it for per-URL anchors — but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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