Citable — backlink profile and top referring domains

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool is paid ($0.10 USDC per call) and not charged on failure, which are important operational behaviors. It also sets expectation that the full link profile comes in one call. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short and front-loaded, with pricing first, the core payload second, use-case context third, and failure-pricing reassurance last. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is needed: cost, failure behavior, input expectation (domain), and a clear summary of returned fields. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

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%, so both parameters (domain and limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the returned referring domains correspond to the limit parameter.

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 identifies the resource: a link/backlink profile with total backlinks, referring domains, domain rank, broken links, nofollow share, and top referring domains. It is specific about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like citable_domain_overview or citable_citability_report.

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?

It frames the tool as 'The link-prospecting starting point,' giving an agent clear situational context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case context is reasonably clear.

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