keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method and an example request, implying a read operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, token/base_url overrides, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 short label, method, path, and one example. It contains no filler, and the essential routing facts are front-loaded. It could be somewhat more informative while still concise, but it is efficient as written.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what data is returned and any behavioral constraints. It only provides a path and example, leaving response shape, default pagination, and the relationship to similar report endpoints unstated. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the tool.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The example query adds a concrete usage pattern for domain, sort, page, and per_page, but the description itself does not add semantic meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the endpoint resource as 'Анкоры' (anchors) and provides the exact HTTP method and path, making it clear this retrieves the backlinks anchor report. The /report/simple/links/backlinks-anchor path differentiates it from sibling link-report tools, though there is no explicit verb phrase beyond the generic GET method.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as backlinks, outlinks, domains, or IP reports, and it offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The example request shows how to call it but not when.

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