get_new_lost_backlinks

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. It only states that it 'monitors' gained and lost backlinks, without revealing whether this is a read-only operation, the return format (list vs. counts), pagination, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no safety hints.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the use case as a secondary clause. There is no redundant or extra content, making it highly efficient.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify return values. It does not specify whether the tool returns a list of backlink URLs, dates, or aggregate counts. The description covers purpose and use cases but lacks essential detail about the result shape, making it incomplete for an agent.

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% as each parameter (domain, date_from, date_to) has a description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, only referencing 'a time period' which aligns with the date parameters.

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 "Monitor" and identifies the resource "backlinks gained and lost" over a time period, clearly defining the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_backlinks_summary and get_referring_domains by focusing on new and lost backlinks.

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 clear use-case context: 'tracking link building efforts and detecting negative SEO.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.

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