keyso_get_report_compare_view_backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the HTTP method (GET) and path, which implies a read operation, but it does not state what the comparison output looks like, whether authentication or a token is required, how pagination works, or any limits. This is minimal beyond the name and 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 compact: a one-line purpose, the method and path, and a single concrete example. There is no fluff, and the example earns its place by demonstrating the required `incl`/`excl` and the fixed `view=backlinks` parameter.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the response format, token/auth expectations, when to set `view` versus relying on the path, and does not orient the agent among the large sibling toolset. The example shows usage but leaves critical operational context implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The example URL does add practical meaning by showing concrete values for `base`, `incl`, `excl`, `view`, `sort`, `page`, and `per_page`. However, the description does not explain the meaning of the parameters themselves; that burden remains on the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Сравнение сайтов по ссылкам' ('Compare sites by links'), and the path `/report/compare?view=backlinks` clarifies the exact scope. It distinguishes from the organic and context compare siblings through the 'backlinks' focus, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling compare tools (`view_organic`, `view_context`) or any other report tool. The example request is helpful but does not explain prerequisites, ideal use cases, or exclusions.

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