Backlinks Indexed Pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic operation and mentions sorting/limit controls. It does not say that results are sorted descending, what fields are returned, whether pagination exists, or what the response looks like, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema.

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 states the action, resource, key controls, and endpoint without filler. It earns its place and stays compact despite the number of parameters.

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 schema is rich enough to make the tool minimally invocable, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should have provided more operational context such as result shape or how this differs from sibling backlink tools. It is adequate for a simple list operation but has clear gaps for an agent deciding among 23 siblings.

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%: target, mode, limit, output, and order_by all have their own descriptions with enums and defaults. The description's 'sorting and limit controls' merely echoes what the schema already documents, adding no new 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('site pages that have backlinks'), which clearly identifies the operation as a list of indexed pages rather than raw backlink records. The endpoint path adds confirmation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like backlinksAll or backlinksSummary, but the word 'pages' gives enough semantic separation for a 4.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of backlinksAll, backlinksRefdomains, backlinksAnchors, or other siblings. The phrase 'with sorting and limit controls' describes features but does not state intended use cases or exclusions.

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