Backlinks List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists the returned columns. It says nothing about API unit consumption (even though the limit param warns 'more rows = more API units'), pagination, or how first/last seen dates behave on repeat crawls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the payload contents are listed immediately. It is appropriately sized, though one more sentence on cost or target_type semantics would have earned its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must shoulder more, and listing the returned fields is genuinely useful. However, the meaning of the required target_type enum and the cost implications of large limits are left uncovered, so an agent can form a call but not necessarily an efficient one.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'target' accepts either a domain or a URL, partially covering the undocumented target_type enum, but it never explains the distinction between root_domain, domain and url values.

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: it returns individual backlink records pointing to a domain or URL, and even enumerates the record fields (source page, anchor text, link type, first/last seen). This clearly separates it from the aggregate siblings semrush_backlinks_overview and semrush_backlinks_refdomains, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The word 'Individual' faintly implies this is the drill-down counterpart to the aggregate backlink tools, but the agent must infer that routing itself.

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