list_lost_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 implies a read operation with 'Return' and defines the unhealthy states, but it does not mention potential behaviors like authentication, pagination, or result ordering. For a simple list operation this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second gives a practical use case plus filter hint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema), but with no annotations the description should cover more. It defines the key concept and use case, but does not mention site_id scope or limit behavior, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is only 33% (only 'since' has a description). The description mentions 'since filter' but does not add meaning beyond the schema, and it fails to explain 'limit' or 'site_id'. It does not compensate for the gap in schema documentation.

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 states the tool returns backlinks in unhealthy states (broken, unreachable, redirected). This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_backlinks' by focusing on lost/unhealthy 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?

It gives a concrete use case ('what did I lose recently?') and suggests combining with a since filter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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