linkminer_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get latest LinkMiner used requests' without disclosing whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, pagination/limit behavior, or any authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with optional parameters and no output schema; more detail would be valuable without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should clarify what 'used requests' means and what the caller will get back. It neither explains the return format nor the scope (e.g., recent vs. all requests), leaving significant gaps for a simple but underdefined tool.

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%, with both parameters having generic descriptions ('Optional JSON request body' and 'Optional query string parameters'). The description adds no tool-specific parameter meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameter existence and basic purpose.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('latest LinkMiner used requests'), specifying the product (LinkMiner) and operation type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kwfinder_requests and serpchecker_requests by product name, though 'used requests' is somewhat ambiguous (e.g., request history vs. quota usage).

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?

Usage context is only implied: it is for retrieving recent request usage for LinkMiner, as opposed to similar tools for other Mangools products. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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