Referring domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sorting behavior ('ordered by domain rating') and the general output nature (a list of domains). However, it does not mention pagination, limits, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response, which are important for a tool with no output schema. It's adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. There is no redundant information; every word contributes to the understanding. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, sorting, and the kind of information returned (referring domains and authority). It lacks detail on response format or limitations, but for a straightforward listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete to guide 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 50%; the 'target' parameter is described in the schema, while 'limit' is not. The tool description adds context that 'target' is the site being analyzed and that the output is a list of domains, but it does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter. The schema's default and max provide some inference, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter explanation.

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 tool lists domains linking to a target and orders them by domain rating. It uses specific language ('Domains linking to a target') and explains the value ('Shows who links to a site and how authoritative they are'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like backlinks-stats which focus on backlink details rather than domains.

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 context for use: when you want to identify referring domains and assess their authority. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough to guide selection. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' prevents a 5.

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