backlinks_bulk_referring_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include 'all live referring domains' with 'any type of backlinks' and are from the 'latest check,' adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format (since no output schema exists). The description provides some transparency but misses key operational aspects for a bulk query 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?

The description is appropriately concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the core functionality, followed by clarifying notes on data recency and domain handling. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the text is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more efficient by integrating the domain clarification into the initial statement, but overall it avoids waste.

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 (bulk querying of referring domains), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral notes but lacks output details (no schema provided) and does not address usage relative to siblings. With no annotations and a single well-documented parameter, the description provides a basic understanding but leaves gaps in operational guidance and result interpretation, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting the 'targets' parameter with examples and formatting rules. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond this, only reiterating that targets include 'domains, subdomains, and pages.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with additional insights but also does not detract.

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's purpose: 'provide you with the number of referring domains pointing to domains, subdomains, and pages specified in the targets array.' It specifies the verb ('provide'), resource ('number of referring domains'), and scope ('targets array'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'backlinks_referring_domains' or 'backlinks_bulk_new_lost_referring_domains', which appear related. This makes it clear but not fully distinct from alternatives.

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 minimal usage guidance. It notes that results are based on 'all live referring domains' from the 'latest check' and clarifies domain vs. subdomain handling, but does not specify when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., 'backlinks_referring_domains' for single targets or 'backlinks_bulk_new_lost_referring_domains' for changes over time). No explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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