backlink_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the price is disclosed. However, there is no explicit statement that the tool does not modify anything, nor any mention of rate limits or authentication requirements. For a simple lookup tool, the read-only nature is reasonably implied, but not fully explicit.

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 well-structured: a concise summary up front, followed by pricing and a bulleted list of returns. It is not overly verbose, and the key purpose is front-loaded. The only minor detraction is the pricing line, which is not directly about tool behavior but still useful.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the specific metrics returned and mentions pricing. It does not explain the exact format of the 'domain' input beyond the schema example, but that is adequate. The tool is simple enough that no further context is required.

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 describes the single 'domain' parameter with an example, and the description repeats it without adding new meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('backlink profile'), and clearly distinguishes its focus (referring domains, link metrics, anchor text) from sibling tools like on_page_audit and serp_analysis. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs.

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 does not mention any specific conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and description.

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