get_backlinks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get[s] backlinks list' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the domain is invalid. The return format is briefly mentioned but lacks detail on structure or error handling.

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?

Appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, args, and returns. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though the structure is basic. Could be slightly more polished but earns its place efficiently.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context: purpose, parameter semantics, and a vague return outline. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., errors, limits) and output structure, making it incomplete for optimal agent use. Scores as minimum viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'domain (str): The domain to query', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. With only 1 parameter, this is sufficient to reach a baseline near 4, though it could elaborate on format (e.g., 'example.com').

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get backlinks list for the specified domain' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('backlinks list') with the target ('domain'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_traffic' or 'keyword_difficulty', but the purpose is unambiguous. Not a tautology since it elaborates beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_traffic' or 'keyword_generator'. The description implies usage for retrieving backlink data, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Minimal implied usage from the purpose statement alone.

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