backlinks_available_filters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at behavioral aspects by noting filters are 'associated with a certain object,' but fails to disclose key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, any rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and avoids unnecessary length, but it's not optimally front-loaded—the first sentence is somewhat generic, and the second adds context but could be more direct. It's concise but lacks the crispness of higher-scoring examples, with room for improvement in structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (providing filter information for API endpoints) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the filters, or any dependencies, making it inadequate for effective use without additional context.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('tool' parameter is documented), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain the 'tool' parameter's purpose or usage in context, but the schema adequately covers it, resulting in a minimal viable score.

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 states it provides 'information about filters that can be used with DataForSEO Backlinks API endpoints,' which gives a general purpose but is vague about what specific action the tool performs (e.g., list, retrieve, describe). It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'backlinks_available_filters' vs. 'dataforseo_labs_available_filters' or other filter-related tools, making it tautological in restating the tool name's implication without specificity.

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 mentions that 'filters are associated with a certain object in the result array, and should be specified accordingly,' which offers some implied context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other filter tools or backlinks endpoints). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving usage unclear.

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