Backlink profile

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not destructive, and the description goes beyond by disclosing credit costs and cached-result behavior. It does not fully clarify the non-readOnly annotation, but the credit cost and research nature are sufficiently transparent for usage.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: the first defines outputs, the second gives use cases, and the third covers cost and a related tool. No wasted words, and the most relevant information appears first.

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 simple single-parameter research tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, cost implications, cache behavior, and a complementary sibling tool. This is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers the lone parameter 'domain' fully with 'Domain to inspect.' The description reinforces the domain concept but adds little beyond what the schema already states. This is acceptable given the 100% schema coverage.

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 explains the tool's purpose: showing who links to a domain, including referring domains, authority, and anchor texts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on link data and explicitly contrasts with backlink_directories.

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 states when to use the tool ('when planning link building or judging how defensible a competitor's ranking is') and points to a complementary tool (backlink_directories) for related but distinct needs. It also includes practical cost guidance about credits and caching.

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