edf_ahrefs_domain_rating

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds real operational context beyond them: an AHREFS_API_KEY environment requirement, a 1000-domain cap, URL/subdomain normalization to ICANN roots, and null/zero-value semantics for missing metrics.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the core action and data source in the first sentence and the constraints/caveats after. It is a single block with no wasted sentences, though it packs many facts into one paragraph rather than grouping them.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does (DR, attribution, license; nulls for missing; zero is valid). Combined with the auth prerequisite and normalization behavior, an agent has nearly everything needed to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'targets' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the 1000-item ceiling and that URLs/subdomains are normalized to registrable roots, which meaningfully clarifies what values are acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get Domain Rating for registrable domains) plus the exact data source (official free Ahrefs public endpoint). This clearly separates it from siblings like edf_whois_lookup, edf_dns_lookup, and edf_check_domains.

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?

Tells the agent when this applies (standalone, 'independent of the EDF app; no launch or job is needed'), which implicitly routes away from edf_launch/edf_get_job workflows, and clarifies what the metric is NOT (DA, PA, traffic, backlink quality). It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool for the cases it excludes.

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