Get backlink report

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

Even with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it preserves timestamps and coverage, clarifies that 'Ready' means the response is available, explains that coverage compares returned rows to provider totals, notes that no additional provider pages are exported, and warns that returned data is untrusted content.

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 compact and information-dense, with each sentence contributing either to usage guidance, behavioral semantics, or security context. It is front-loaded with the core retrieval purpose and follows with necessary caveats.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the relevant behavioral aspects: idempotency, coverage meaning, export limitations, and trust boundary of returned data. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently clarifies what the agent should expect and how to interpret results.

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 schema fully documents the single reportId parameter with a pattern and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce that the reportId is the MCP reportId by describing the report as owned.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve an owned backlink report and provider results without creating another report. It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling create_backlinks_report by emphasizing that no new report is created.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when an existing owned backlink report should be retrieved rather than created. It does not explicitly name the alternative create_backlinks_report, but the contrast with creating reports and the report-specific terminology make the intended usage clear.

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