Backlink check report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what the response contains (per-donor DA, spam score, indexing status, links), which matters since there is no output schema. However it says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the task must be finished first.

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 returned fields are listed compactly. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it leaves little room for the guidance an agent actually needs.

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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description carries the burden and only partly meets it: it names return fields but omits pagination behavior, prerequisites, and any sense of result volume for a tool that can return up to 200 donors per page.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description only implies that 'task_id' identifies the backlink check task. The 'page' and 'limit' parameters (with defaults 0 and 50, max 200) are never mentioned, so pagination semantics are left entirely to the bare schema types.

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 names the resource precisely ('per-donor results of a backlink check task') and enumerates the returned fields (DA, spam score, indexing status, links found), so an agent can tell this is a report-retrieval tool distinct from check_backlinks or get_report. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.

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, no statement that this should be called after a check_backlinks task exists, and no mention of alternatives such as get_report. The agent must infer the workflow position from the name alone.

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