Backlinks Overview

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 says nothing about Semrush API unit consumption (a sibling, semrush_api_units_balance, implies cost is a real concern), rate limits, authentication, or result freshness. It reads as an output preview rather than an operational description.

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; the metric list is the useful payload. It is arguably too terse given what is left unsaid, but the sentence itself earns 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?

With no output schema, listing the returned metrics is a genuine contribution. However, for a tool with an undocumented enum parameter and no annotations, the definition omits too much: parameter behavior, cost implications, and differentiation from sibling backlink tools.

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 50%: 'target' is documented, but 'target_type' has an enum with no description, and the default (root_domain) is unexplained. The description mentions no parameters whatsoever, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and leaves the enum-to-target relationship ambiguous.

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 the resource (backlink profile) and enumerates the specific metrics returned (total backlinks, referring domains, referring IPs, follow/nofollow split), which goes beyond the bare title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like semrush_backlinks or semrush_backlinks_refdomains, so an agent must infer the 'summary vs. detail' distinction.

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 at all. With three backlink-related siblings (semrush_backlinks, semrush_backlinks_refdomains, semrush_backlinks_overview), the description never says when this aggregate view is preferable to the list-level tools.

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