Backlinks All

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 only lists features that are already documented in the input schema (sorting, limits, filters). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (despite limit and per_domain parameters), rate limits, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence that efficiently lists the tool's capabilities. It is not verbose, but it could be improved by separating the purpose from the feature list (e.g., using a colon or bullet points). Still, it is concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Fetch backlinks').

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 (17 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output structure, how results are ordered by default, or how to interpret the limit and per_domain interaction. The detailed parameter schema partially compensates, but the description lacks high-level context for an AI agent to understand the workflow (e.g., pagination, data scope).

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly lists parameter categories (e.g., 'rank filters', 'URL/anchor filters') that are already defined in the schema, without adding new semantic meaning. For example, 'nofollow_filter' is mentioned but the description does not explain the difference between 'nofollow_only' and 'dofollow_only' beyond what the enum provides.

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 action ('Fetch backlinks') and the resource ('a single target'), and lists all key filtering capabilities (sorting, limits, rank, URL/anchor, nofollow). It also includes the API endpoint (v1/backlinks/all), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., backlinksAnchors, backlinksAuthority).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer backlinksAll over other backlinks-related siblings (e.g., backlinksAnchors, backlinksSummary) or any prerequisites. The phrase 'with sorting, limits, rank filters' implies feature richness but does not clarify use cases.

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