Inbound links to a URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are external links with anchor text and the response is paginated, which hints at paging behavior the annotations do not convey. Missing detail on page size or end-of-results, but solid for a read-only 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?

Two terse sentences with the core resource front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the subject (external links), the scope (one URL of the site), the return detail (anchor text), and the behavior (paginated).

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state what comes back (links plus anchor text) and that paging exists. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics or field shape, but for a simple three-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.

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%: 'link', 'siteUrl' (including the 'Call list_sites if unsure' hint) and 'page' are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose implication that 'Paginated' relates to the page parameter, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('External links pointing to one URL of the site') and adds the return detail 'with anchor text'. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never names the close sibling get_inbound_link_counts, so the agent must infer the distinction between raw links and counts.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions alternatives such as get_inbound_link_counts, which is the obvious competing tool for backlink data. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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