keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is a GET request (implying read-only) and shows a sample URL; it says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, response shape, or data volume. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very compact — a label, method, path, and one example — with no wasted words. The example is front-loaded and immediately useful. It is under-specified overall, but on pure size/structure grounds it earns a good score.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is materially incomplete. It fails to explain filter semantics (which are referenced but not described), what the response contains, how pagination behaves, or how this endpoint relates to the surrounding backlink-tool family.

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 baseline is 3. The example query demonstrates how domain, sort (created_at|desc), page, and per_page combine, adding slight value beyond the schema. However, it adds no meaning for the filter parameter or token override, so it doesn't rise above the baseline.

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 opens with 'Входящие ссылки' ('Incoming links'), which is a noun phrase that essentially restates 'backlinks' from the tool name rather than a clear verb+resource statement. The method/path/example add operational specificity, but the description does not distinguish this from the many sibling backlink tools (backlinks_domains, backlinks_ip, backlinks_anchor, outlinks variants).

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the related siblings such as keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_domains or keyso_get_report_simple_links_outlinks. The example URL implies usage but there are no explicit contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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