keyso_get_report_simple_links_outlinks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Method: GET' and the path, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains. The example request adds some context but no substantive behavioral transparency.

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: it starts with the resource label, then gives method, path, and a concrete example request. There is no filler, though it is terse enough that some useful context is missing.

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?

Given no output schema and many closely related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what an outlink record contains, how the result is structured, or how this report differs from the outlinks_domains and backlinks variants. The example URL is helpful but insufficient for confident tool selection.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds an example URL with sort, page, and per_page values, which slightly clarifies usage, but it does not materially explain parameters beyond the schema. 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 identifies the resource as 'Исходящие ссылки' (outgoing links) and provides the exact GET endpoint, so an agent can tell this is the outlinks report. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like outlinks_domains or backlinks.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the backlinks reports or the outlinks_domains variant. The endpoint and name imply the purpose, but the description never states selection criteria or exclusions.

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