backlink_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the return is a single 1-100 score and nothing else, and names the data provider (Moz), which matters for provenance. It stops short of describing failure behavior for invalid or unindexed domains.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the exclusions follow logically. The trailing 'Args:' and '[Provider: Moz]' blocks are slightly redundant in structure but do carry information, so there is little real waste.

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 one-parameter, single-value tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, what it does not return, and where to go instead. The only meaningful gap is domain input formatting and error cases for unknown domains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does add a concrete example format ('example.com'), which implies a bare domain without scheme, but it never states whether subdomains, paths, or 'www.' prefixes are accepted or how they are normalized.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Get a domain's Moz Brand Authority score (1-100)' — and immediately bounds the output to that single number. The explicit negative scoping ('It doesn't list backlinks, referring domains, anchor text or spam score') makes clear what class of tool this is not, so an agent can distinguish it from broader backlink or brand tools.

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 gives clear usage context by directing backlink/anchor/spam requests to external SEO tools like Semrush or Ahrefs. It does not name or contrast with any in-catalog sibling (e.g. brand_visibility), so the routing guidance is only partial, but the when-not-to-use signal is explicit.

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