linkminer_links

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states 'Get backlinks,' implying a read operation, but omits details about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the exact return format. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or data volume.

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 with no wasted words. It is easily parsed, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no required parameters, the description alone is insufficient. It does not clarify what the 'backlinks' response contains, whether a URL is needed, or how the optional body/query affect the request. The agent must rely on parameter names and sibling tools to infer behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing url as 'Target URL or domain,' and body/query as optional pass-through parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('backlinks') from 'LinkMiner.' This distinguishes it from tools like kwfinder or serpchecker, though not from sibling tools like linkminer_exports or linkminer_url_metrics. The scope (e.g., for a URL) is implied by the input schema but not explicitly stated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose linkminer_links over related tools like linkminer_url_metrics or linkminer_exports.

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