get_referring_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the API source (Serpstat) and return data (referring domains with metrics and filtering), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or error handling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('Get a list of referring domains') and includes key details (API source, return metrics, filtering). There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating functional and contextual elements. Overall, it's appropriately sized and clear.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and high-level functionality but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, errors, or API constraints. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a basic foundation that's adequate yet with clear gaps.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'query' as 'Domain to analyze for referring domains'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filtering options' and 'comprehensive backlink analysis', which loosely relates to parameters like 'sort' and 'searchType', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. 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 referring domains using Serpstat API' with specific resources (referring domains) and metrics (domain rank, referring pages count). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_backlinks' or 'get_backlinks_summary' by focusing on domains rather than individual backlinks or summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools (e.g., 'get_active_outlink_domains'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 usage for 'comprehensive backlink analysis' with filtering options, suggesting it's for detailed domain-level backlink insights. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_backlinks_summary' or 'get_active_backlinks', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not fully directive.

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