Backlinks Summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds modest value by clarifying input format constraints (e.g., domain without 'https://'). However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, data freshness, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information. While it could be structured with more detail, it earns a high score for brevity.

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?

Despite having detailed annotations and schema coverage, the description lacks information about the output format or content of the overview (e.g., whether it returns counts, metrics, or trends). Given the complexity of the domain (multiple sibling tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context on what the overview includes.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters thoroughly (target formatting, include_subdomains, exclude_internal_backlinks). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states that the tool provides an overview of backlinks data for a domain, subdomain, or webpage. It uses a specific verb ('provides an overview') and identifies the resource ('backlinks data') and target types. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'backlinks_backlinks' or 'backlinks_domain_intersection', the scope is sufficiently clear.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. No contextual clues are given about prerequisites or exclusions, which is a significant gap given the large set of sibling tools.

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