Backlink checker

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by warning that 'this operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits,' which is useful behavioral context for a non-read-only operation. It also names the upstream API tool. It does not contradict the annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a cost-consuming operation.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, upstream API provenance, and cost warning. It is front-loaded with the core operation and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is adequate for identifying the core operation and cost side effect, and the schema is rich with parameter descriptions. However, the tool's two-mode schema (new request vs. continuing by task_id) and asynchronous behavior are not mentioned, and with no output schema the return semantics are left unspecified. These are clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description does add conceptual mapping by mentioning 'donor pages' and 'acceptor URLs' and 'optional indexation,' but it does not explain the parameters beyond that. The schema carries the main burden here.

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 states a clear verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('donor pages for links to acceptor URLs') plus an optional secondary concern ('indexation'). It is distinct from sibling SEO tools, which focus on keywords, positions, or text, so an agent can identify what this tool does even before opening the schema.

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?

The first sentence gives a direct use case: checking donor pages for links to acceptor URLs and indexation. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool. The account-limit warning also adds practical usage context.

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