get_active_backlinks

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 mentions the API source (Serpstat) and the type of data returned, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what 'active' means operationally. The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and data returned, the second adds context for analysis. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the analysis context into the first sentence.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how to interpret results like 'link attributes' or 'discovery dates'. For a data retrieval tool with rich parameters, more behavioral and output context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying domain/URL analysis context, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'searchType' affects 'query' interpretation) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a list of active backlinks using Serpstat API' with specific details about what data is returned (linking pages, target pages, link attributes, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_lost_backlinks' or 'get_threat_backlinks' by specifying 'active' backlinks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'get_backlinks_summary'.

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 this over 'get_backlinks_summary', 'get_lost_backlinks', or other backlink-related tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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