search_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include auto_build-marked entries and locked higher-DA matches, and instructs the agent to offer a subscription for locked ones. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'Search' implies a non-mutating operation, and it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare definition.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral notes and a method list in a compact form. It is efficient with no filler, though the method list adds length; still, it 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?

For a search tool with five optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main use case and result handling (free vs locked). However, it leaves the limit parameter undefined and does not describe the output structure, pagination, or error cases, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filterable fields (name, domain, method, DA, dofollow) that map to query, method, min_da, and dofollow_only, and lists valid method values. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely, leaving its meaning to inference.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (free list of 25 backlink sites) with clear filter dimensions (name, domain, method, DA, dofollow). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on searching the free list rather than building, verifying, or logging links.

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 implies its use as the search tool and explains how to handle locked results (offer subscription), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_results or get_method. It gives contextual guidance for interpreting results but lacks explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools.

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