get_backlinks_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a summary with specific fields, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, data freshness, or rate limits.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and output, with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a useful list of returned metrics ('total backlinks, referring domains, domain rank, and more') and makes the tool's scope clear. It lacks use-case elaboration, but is sufficient 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?

The schema covers the lone 'domain' parameter with a clear example, and the description reinforces that it analyzes a domain. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating the parameter context, earning the baseline score.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get backlink profile summary for a domain.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_referring_domains or get_new_lost_backlinks by framing it as an aggregate summary rather than a granular detail tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools exist for specific backlink aspects, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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