Backlinks Anchors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does indicate a read-only 'Fetch' operation and scopes the request to a single target, but it does not mention authentication expectations, how results are aggregated or grouped, whether pagination exists beyond the limit parameter, or what response shape to expect. These are material gaps for an API tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and key controls without unnecessary fluff. The parenthetical endpoint reference is mildly redundant with the tool name but still useful for direct API mapping, so the length and structure are appropriate.

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 has five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several similar sibling tools. The description explains the core purpose but does not clarify return values, grouping behavior, or how it differs from other backlinks* tools, leaving the definition incomplete for reliable selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters and defaults documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, though it does reinforce the 'single target' concept and the presence of sorting and limit controls.

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 operation ('Fetch') and the resource ('anchor texts of backlinks pointing to a single target'), making its purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like backlinksAll or backlinksRefdomains, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is used when anchor-text data for a backlink target is needed, and it notes sorting and limit controls. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or comparative conditions, leaving the when-to-use decision somewhat to inference.

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