list_backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'list' and 'retrieves', and describes the return format. However, it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are not explicitly covered.

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 well-structured with a title, summary, args, returns, and examples. Every section is concise and informative, with no redundant or vague language.

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 straightforward list tool with optional filtering and pagination, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and examples. It lacks error handling or edge-case details, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining campaign_id as a filter, offset for pagination, and limit for max results, plus usage examples. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 backlinks from AgencyAnalytics, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'backlinks'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_keywords, list_campaigns, and list_users by naming the resource explicitly.

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 usage context through examples for no filter, campaign filter, and pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the resource-specific naming and examples make usage intuitive.

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