backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the main-namespace filtering constraint ('talk/user/etc. don't pollute the result'), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, 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?

Front-loads the core definition ('List incoming Wikipedia links to an article') before elaborating with examples and the namespace filter. Slightly verbose with the parenthetical examples, but each sentence adds routing or scope 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to stand alone, and it covers purpose, the inverse relationship to `links`, use case, and result scoping. It omits return-format/ordering details, which is a minor gap for a simple list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so lang, limit, and title are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (incoming Wikipedia links/backlinks), and explicitly names the sibling it inverts: 'Inverse of `links`'. An agent can distinguish it from external_links, links, and search without opening a 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?

Gives clear usage context ('graph-style discovery in the reverse direction — mapping an article's position in the encyclopedia network') and the inverse-relationship cue to `links`. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming a preferred alternative for overlapping needs, so it lands just under a 5.

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