backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source ('Bing knows') and pagination, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or how incomplete/incorrect siteUrl values are handled. Some relevant behavioral context is missing.

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 deliver the essential behavior, both modes, and pagination without wasted words. The most important distinction (with/without `url`) is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 description covers the two output forms and pagination, which is the core information an agent needs. It does not specify page size or error behavior, but given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the key context is present. Minor gaps exist around siteUrl behavior, though the schema covers the default.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that `url` changes the shape of the output (counts vs. linking pages/anchors) and that `page` controls pagination. This goes beyond the schema's basic field definitions.

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 inbound links known to Bing and distinguishes two modes: per-page counts without `url`, and linking pages/anchor texts with `url`. This specific behavior differentiates it from sibling tools like `url_info` or `query_stats` without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear internally structured usage context by explaining when to pass `url` versus omit it, and mentions pagination via `page`. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the mode-based guidance is enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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