keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_domains

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 does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination applies, or what the response format is. The example URL implies pagination but does not explain behavior or edge cases.

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 terse, consisting of a title, method, path, and an example URL. While it avoids verbosity, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The example is helpful, but the structure does not front-load a clear purpose or usage context.

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 a host of similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, how it differs from other backlink reports, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters, but the tool's function and placement within the API remain unclear.

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 every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The description adds only a concrete example showing how sort, page, and per_page are used, which is mildly useful but does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is essentially a noun phrase 'Ссылающиеся домены' (referring domains) plus the endpoint path. It identifies the resource but not a specific action or what data is returned. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings like keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks or keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_anchor.

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 similar backlink/outlink report tools. No mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent has no way to know why this specific endpoint should be chosen over its siblings.

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