keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_73ce94f4

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that this is a GET request and hints at pagination via the example query; it does not describe response contents, authentication requirements, defaults, or any constraints. This is thin disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the endpoint path and a concrete example. No filler or redundant prose is present, though the method/path lines could arguably have been merged with the example.

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 simple GET report endpoint with well-documented parameters, the example and schema are enough to construct a valid request. However, there is no output-shape information and no guidance for choosing this tool among the many closely related backlinks/outlinks siblings, so completeness is only adequate.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The example adds a concrete sort value and pagination usage, but the description does not substantially explain parameters beyond what the schema already 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 identifies the resource: referring domains with data for a specific domain. The path and example with domain=wildberries.ru reinforce the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_domains, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'по конкретному домену' and the example imply the intended use case: retrieving referring-domain data for one domain. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling alternatives such as backlinks vs. outlinks or the other backlinks-domains variants.

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