get_lost_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 sorting and filtering aspects but lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the output format looks like. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a practical usage tip. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lacks details on behavioral traits like safety, performance, or output format, and while it hints at parameter usage, it does not compensate for the absence of structured behavioral information, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'query' parameter is for analysis and suggesting a specific use of 'sort' and 'order' ('use sort by check desc'), but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies for parameters like 'additionalFilters' or 'page'/'size'.

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 ('list of lost backlinks'), specifying what data is returned (linking pages, target pages, link attributes, deletion dates) and the purpose (domain or URL analysis). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_backlinks' by focusing on lost rather than active backlinks.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('for domain or URL analysis') and includes a specific usage tip ('use sort by check desc to get recently lost backlinks'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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