Backlinks Referring Domains

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation and 'limit controls' hints at pagination, but the description does not state return format, rate limits, authentication needs, or how sorting behavior manifests in the response.

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 naming the action, resource, target requirement, and available controls. There is no filler or redundant elaboration, and the endpoint suffix is compact useful context.

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 straightforward read-only tool with a fully described input schema, the description covers the essentials. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the response shape, error behavior, and when-to-use boundaries remain unstated, making the description adequate but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, their defaults, enums, and constraints. The description only adds the generic phrase 'sorting and limit controls,' which does not meaningfully supplement the schema but does not need to given full coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource ('referring domains') and the target scope, making the core function understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like backlinksAll or backlinksAuthority, so it falls just 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backlinksAll, backlinksSummary, or backlinksAuthority. The only implied use case is needing referring-domain data, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues.

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