find_competitor_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output fields (url, title, domain, position, Moz DA) and the optional filtering behavior for my_domain. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but given the read-only nature and the explicit return format, this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the central purpose and adding a memorable analogy. Every clause earns its place without redundancy, covering purpose, optional filtering, and return format 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields and explains the optional exclusion filter. It covers the essential information for a straightforward read tool, though it could mention the limit parameter's behavior or pagination, but these are not critical for usage.

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 already documents competitor_domain and my_domain with useful descriptions. The description reinforces the my_domain parameter by explaining it yields only new opportunities. However, the limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, and its semantics are left to the schema's default/max/min constraints. The added value is moderate.

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 identifies the tool's function: returning pages that link to or feature a competitor in roundups/lists/alternatives/vs articles. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource type ('pages that link to a competitor'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_backlinks (own backlinks) and list_lost_backlinks.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (finding competitor-referencing pages as potential link prospects) and explains the optional my_domain parameter to filter for new opportunities. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the use case is well implied.

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