keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_d060950e

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the HTTP method (GET) and path, but does not mention any behavior such as pagination, filtering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 extremely concise but under-specified. It is essentially a title fragment plus method/path/example, lacking any structured explanation. While brevity is good, this is not a proper description; it is more of a label and would benefit from at least one sentence clarifying the tool's purpose and key parameters.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the report returns, how to use filters or sorting, pagination behavior, or any other operational details. The example provides a partial template but is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds an example query showing usage of domain, sort, page, and per_page, which provides a small amount of practical context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on parameter semantics or relationships, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 provides a Russian phrase 'Ссылки по IP - подсети' (Links by IP - subnets) along with the HTTP method and path, which together indicate the tool retrieves backlinks grouped by IP subnet. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', and the purpose is not clearly stated as a full sentence. It is distinguishable from siblings only by reading the path, not by the description text itself.

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 use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks or keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_domains. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which report variant is appropriate.

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