get_category_top_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Returns ranked domains' and includes 'filtering and sorting options,' which gives some behavioral insight. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and return context. It uses three sentences efficiently, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from output details, but overall it's concise and well-organized.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and high-level output, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, it should provide more context on what the ranked domains output looks like, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'SEO metrics (traffic, visibility, keywords, backlinks, SDR)' and 'filtering and sorting options,' but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get top-performing domains in a specific market category with SEO metrics (traffic, visibility, keywords, backlinks, SDR).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('top-performing domains'), and scope ('in a specific market category'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_domain_competitors' or 'get_domains_info' by focusing on category-based ranking with SEO metrics.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Requires category_id from get_market_categories - call that method first to find the right category.' It names the prerequisite tool ('get_market_categories') and specifies when to use this tool ('for competitive landscape analysis'), offering clear context for selection over alternatives like general domain info tools.

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