État MyBack.link du site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing what the status report contains, which is especially useful given there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the resource name and immediately listing the relevant status fields. The endpoint at the end is slightly redundant with the tool name but not harmful. Every listed item contributes to the agent's understanding of the returned data.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the pre-order usage context, and the key return fields. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 100%: the only parameter, siteId, is described as an encoded hashid. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 identifies the tool as a status/state readout for a site's MyBack.link configuration and enumerates the exact data it returns (purchase authorization, monthly cap, spend, credit, options, themes, anchors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like orderBacklinks or getSiteStats by focusing on pre-order eligibility information.

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 phrase 'À lire avant toute commande' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before placing any order. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the pre-order context is clear enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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