keyso_get_report_simple_links_backlinks_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method GET and the exact path, implying a read-only operation, and the example hints at pagination/sorting. But it does not mention response shape, auth requirements, rate limits, or any endpoint-specific caveats.

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-loads the essential endpoint information: name, method, path, and an example request. There is no filler, though the single Russian phrase 'Ссылки по IP' is terse enough to feel under-specified.

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?

There is no output schema and many near-identical sibling tools exist. The description does not explain the returned fields, how IP grouping works, pagination semantics, or why this endpoint should be preferred over alternatives, leaving a 7-parameter report tool insufficiently contextualized.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The example query adds concrete value by showing a real domain, URL-encoded sort syntax (`backlinks_count%7Cdesc`), and page/per_page usage, helping an agent construct a valid request.

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 a resource ('Ссылки по IP' / Links by IP) and gives the exact path /report/simple/links/backlinks-ip, which distinguishes it from backlinks/domains/anchor siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it does not explain what the report actually returns or how the data is structured.

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 link-report siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The example request demonstrates parameters but not the decision context for selecting this endpoint.

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