Get backlinks for a specific post

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: archived and WIP posts are filtered out, results are newest-first by registration date, and the list is paginated. It stops short of discussing permissions or rate limits, but that is a minor gap given the annotation 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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before adding the exclusion and ordering constraints. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers filtering behavior, sort order, and pagination, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly. It does not describe the shape of returned backlink entries or whether totals/counts are included, a minor omission given the safety profile is fully carried by annotations.

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 all four parameters (page, perPage, teamName, postNumber) are already documented in the schema. The description confirms the paginated nature and the target post but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (paginated list of posts that link back to the specified post), which no sibling tool does. An agent can immediately distinguish it from esa_get_post, esa_get_post_comments, or esa_search_posts without 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 description gives useful operational context (excludes archived/WIP posts, orders by backlink registration date newest-first), which implies when the result is appropriate. However, it never names a when-to-use trigger or an alternative tool, so usage is only implied rather than guided.

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