discover_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the underlying API and the number of indexes, but it doesn't mention potential limitations of Common Crawl's data (e.g., crawl date coverage, incomplete index of the web) or rate limits. The claim 'Free alternative to Ahrefs/Semrush' could overpromise without caveats about data coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what and how; the second gives return values and positioning. Every word contributes value.

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 tool has a simple parameter set and no output schema, and the description covers the main mental model: input domain, output backlink details, and free access. It could be slightly more complete by noting that results are limited to Common Crawl's stored data, but the mention of 'Common Crawl CDX API (3 indexes)' already hints at this. Overall, it is sufficient for selecting and using the tool.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (domain and limit with default 50), and description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond schema, but that is acceptable because the schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Discover backlinks to a domain' and specifies the data source (Common Crawl CDX API) and return values (source URLs, anchor text, link context). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (find_expired, check_domain, competitor_gap) which address different use cases.

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?

It positions the tool as a 'Free alternative to Ahrefs/Semrush backlink API,' indicating when to use it (when backlink data is needed without paid services). It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but its unique purpose and sibling names make the use case clear. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives like competitor_gap for competitor backlink analysis.

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