backlinks_bulk_spam_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the spam score metric and scale, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or error handling. For a bulk processing tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and explain the spam score metric. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly improved by adding a brief usage context, but it's efficiently written.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured data with scores per target), error conditions, or performance characteristics. Given the complexity of bulk processing and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context to be fully helpful.

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%, providing comprehensive details about the 'targets' parameter including format, examples, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that targets include 'domains, subdomains, and pages' and that spam scores are returned. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the schema does most of the work.

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 spam scores of the domains, subdomains, and pages you specified in the targets array.' It includes a specific verb ('provide') and resource ('spam scores'), and explains the proprietary metric scale (0-100). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'backlinks_bulk_ranks' or 'backlinks_bulk_pages_summary' that also process bulk targets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific use cases. The only contextual information is the target format, which is covered in the schema. Without usage context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other bulk backlink tools.

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