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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pricing per row ($0.09, up to 20 rows, header excluded), that 4xx/5xx errors are not charged, and that the response is semicolon-delimited text. These go beyond the annotations and are relevant for cost and parsing decisions. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for a read-only operation.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains pricing, and the third describes the response format. It is front-loaded with the essential function and packs all critical operational details with no waste. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so return structure is covered. The description adds the pricing model and response format, which are not in the schema or annotations. It does not explicitly mention edge cases like empty results or rate limits, but for a straightforward read-only lookup, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('phrase' and 'database'). The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics, such as format nuances or examples beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema earns a baseline of 3, and the description adds no extra value here.

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 states the tool returns 'Domains and URLs currently ranking in Google organic results for a keyword,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It is distinct from siblings like get_semrush_domain_organic_keywords (which returns keywords for a domain) and get_semrush_organic_competitors (which returns competitors), so an agent can differentiate based on the keyword-centric focus.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the keyword-to-domain lookup as opposed to domain-to-keyword tools, nor does it suggest any conditions for selection. The only context is the tool's name, which implies usage but is not explicit.

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