Get backlink report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: no additional provider pages are exported, "Ready" and "coverage" semantics are defined, and the returned data is flagged as untrusted content rather than instructions (a prompt-injection warning). This is substantial behavioral value that no structured field provides.

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 security warning and balance routing are front-loaded and earn their place, but "Preserve report type, timestamps and actual coverage" and "MCP admission units are separate from provider credits" are cryptic jargon-heavy sentences whose operational meaning is unclear. Roughly a third of the text could be tightened.

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 output schema, the description steps in to explain the response shape (ready state, coverage as returned rows vs provider totals, balance fields) plus the untrusted-content caveat, which is enough for an agent to interpret the result. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and what "actual coverage" means when rows fall short of provider totals.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that reportId is the MCP reportId from the matching create tool rather than a provider ID. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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+resource ("Retrieve an owned backlink report and provider results") and distinguishes itself from the create path via "without creating another report", which maps to the sibling create_backlinks_report. It stops short of naming that sibling directly, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 real when-not guidance: "without creating another report" frames it as the retrieval counterpart to creation, and "Do not call get_balance again when the response already includes balance" explicitly routes the agent away from a sibling. It never states the prerequisite that a report must first be created, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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