Pages with inbound links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data provenance (Bing) and that results are paginated, but says nothing about ordering, page size, or whether counts are absolute or domain-deduplicated.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the essential facts (what is returned, source, pagination) and no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter, low-complexity tool with a fully covered schema this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say more about the shape of the return (list of pages with counts) and ordering, which it only gestures at.

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%, so siteUrl and page are already fully documented, including the pointer to list_sites. The description only reinforces this with the word 'Paginated', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (site pages receiving external links) and the metric returned (how many), plus the data source (Bing). It is clearer than a bare name, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_inbound_links, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_inbound_links (per-link detail) or get_url_info. 'Paginated' hints that large result sets should be walked with the page parameter, but no explicit context or exclusion is given.

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