SE Ranking MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are organized into DATA_ and PROJECT_ prefixes, which helps, but within each category there are many similar tools (e.g., multiple backlinks retrieval tools) that could cause confusion. Descriptions provide differentiation, but the sheer number and naming proximity make misselection possible.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a strict CATEGORY_verbNoun pattern with consistent verb usage (get, list, create, delete, update, etc.) and clear nouns. The naming is highly predictable and uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count2/5
With 100 tools, the surface is very large. While the domain of SEO is broad, this number feels excessive and could overwhelm an agent. Many tools are highly specialized, and the count suggests a lack of consolidation or abstraction.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major SEO areas: website audits, backlinks, keyword research, SERP results, project management, competitors, etc. There are minor omissions (e.g., no tool for managing tag assignments beyond listing), but overall the coverage is thorough.
Average 3.2/5 across 100 of 100 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the project list is empty. The claim that a project ID is required contradicts the schema, further harming transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but includes misleading and contradictory information. It is not concise in a helpful way; the single sentence contains an error that harms usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the contradictory description, the tool definition is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a project is, how the list is returned, or any pagination details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description falsely asserts a required project ID when the schema defines no parameters. This misinformation degrades the parameter semantics, as it adds incorrect context beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is contradictory: 'Requires a project ID' but the input schema has no parameters. The title 'List Projects' implies no input, but the description adds an unnecessary requirement. This confusion undermines purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description lacks any context about its purpose relative to PROJECT_listCompetitors, PROJECT_listKeywords, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description implies a read-only list operation, but the missing parameter from the schema makes the actual behavior unclear. No details on pagination, sorting, or side effects are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, but the first sentence is misleading and wastes space on a parameter not in the schema. The second sentence is clear but not enough to justify the length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format or fields of the project groups. Given the complexity of sibling tools, more context is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, yet the description claims a project ID is required. This contradicts the schema and adds no meaningful semantics. The description fails to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a list of all project groups from a user account,' which clearly identifies the operation. However, it also claims 'Requires a project ID,' but the input schema has no parameters, creating confusion. The purpose is somewhat clear but contradicted by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like PROJECT_createProjectGroup, PROJECT_deleteProjectGroup, etc. The 'requires a project ID' note is ambiguous and not actionable without the parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear full responsibility. It claims 'Requires a project ID' but the schema lacks such a parameter, indicating a misleading statement. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or typical behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) but contains filler ('Project Tool:') and a misleading claim. It could be more direct and accurate, though not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a simple tool, the description should explain what a project group is, the relationship to projects, and return value. It fails to do so, and the contradiction between 'requires project ID' and the schema leaves agents uncertain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter with description). The description only repeats 'name of the project group' without adding formatting, constraints, or examples. Baseline score applies as description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Add a new project group to a user account', which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it adds 'Requires a project ID' which is not reflected in the input schema (only 'name' is required), creating confusion. This inconsistency reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_deleteProjectGroup or PROJECT_updateProjectGroup. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose whether keywords are removed from source group, what happens to associated data, or other side effects. The absence of project ID in schema contradicts description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but omits critical details like project ID requirement, leading to incompleteness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description missing project ID and behavior details, leaving uncertainty about source group and mutation scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it transfers keywords between groups but claims a required project ID not present in the schema, causing confusion. No differentiation from sibling tool PROJECT_moveProjectsToGroup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like PROJECT_moveProjectsToGroup or others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it overwrites existing search engines, required permissions, side effects). The agent has no clue about the tool's behavior beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, omitting critical information. While brevity can be good, here it under-specifies the tool's purpose and usage, making it inefficient for decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the process, return values, or interaction with related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and resource 'search engine' targeted at 'project'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like PROJECT_updateSearchEngine or PROJECT_deleteSearchEngine, which share similar context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as PROJECT_updateSearchEngine or PROJECT_deleteSearchEngine. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'adds a new project,' implying a create operation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing projects?), error conditions, or permissions. Significant gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes an unnecessary and inaccurate first sentence ('Requires a project ID') that wastes space and misleads. The second sentence is concise but the overall structure is not efficient due to the misleading statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters with many enums and no output schema, yet the description fails to explain return values, side effects, or constraints like grouping (site_group_id). Given the complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Add a new project to the user account,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, the first sentence 'Project Tool: Requires a project ID' is confusing and potentially misleading because the input schema does not require a project ID. This detracts from clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_updateProject or PROJECT_listProjects. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. 'Delete' implies mutation and potential destruction, but the description does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, if it requires specific permissions, or if it affects related data like keywords within the group.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but includes the redundant phrase 'Project Tool:' which is unnecessary given the title and tool name. The sentence is otherwise clear but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least mention irreversibility or success criteria. The current description is minimal and does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the full implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the group_id parameter, so the description adds no new information about the parameter. The mention of 'Requires a project ID' is not relevant to the actual parameter and could be misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a project keyword group' which is clear about the action and resource. However, it also says 'Requires a project ID,' which is misleading because the schema only requires a group_id, not a project ID. This reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like PROJECT_deleteCompetitor or PROJECT_moveKeywordsToGroup. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has dependencies (e.g., if the group contains projects). Lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes an inaccurate statement about requiring a project ID. It could be more concise and accurate, e.g., 'Delete a project group by group_id.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context such as return value, error handling, or prerequisites. It feels incomplete for a delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with group_id clearly described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a project group,' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, the claim 'Requires a project ID' is misleading because the input schema only includes group_id, not project_id, causing confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like PROJECT_deleteKeywordGroup or PROJECT_deleteSearchEngine. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states the action without mentioning destructiveness, reversibility, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the implications of invoking this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but includes the redundant 'Project Tool:' prefix. It is concise but not optimally structured; it could be more direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or complex parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, success/failure indications, or side effects. For a delete operation, more context is needed to properly guide an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The main description says 'Requires a competitor ID', but the schema's parameter description is 'Incorrect competitor id', which is confusing and likely an error. This undermines clarity. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the object (competitor website from user project). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like addCompetitor or getCompetitorPositions, but could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Requires a competitor ID', but there is no explanation of prerequisites or when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if permissions are needed, or what happens to the source group. The agent receives minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one sentence) but includes inaccuracy. It could be more concise if corrected. The structure is acceptable but not optimally clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that moves projects, the description lacks details about how the source group is determined, whether existing assignments are overwritten, and the result of the operation. No output schema or annotations exist to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented, but the description adds a misleading statement ('Requires a project ID') that does not match the actual required parameters (group_id and site_ids). This confuses rather than clarifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (transfer projects) and destination (to another group or specific group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like PROJECT_moveKeywordsToGroup. However, it inaccurately says 'Requires a project ID' while the schema requires group_id and site_ids, causing minor confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar move tools among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it affects other resources, or any required permissions. The phrase 'Delete keywords from a project' implies mutation but offers no warnings or side-effect details. This is a severe gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 12 words across two sentences. It is front-loaded with 'Project Tool:' which is somewhat redundant given the namespace, but overall it is efficient. Every part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return behavior (e.g., success message, count of deleted items), irreversibility, batch processing limits, and the meaning of 'project ID' versus 'site_id'. For a destructive tool, more context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it mentions a 'project ID' but the parameter is 'site_id' (integer), creating confusion. It does not explain the relationship between 'project ID' and 'site_id', nor does it clarify that 'keywords_ids' are the IDs of keywords to delete (already covered by schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete keywords from a project,' which matches the tool's name and title. The verb 'Delete' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like PROJECT_addKeywords or PROJECT_listKeywords. However, the mention of 'project ID' is slightly inconsistent with the parameter 'site_id' in the input schema, causing minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as PROJECT_deleteKeywordGroup or PROJECT_deleteCompetitor. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist, keywords must be present) or when not to use it. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieves metrics' but does not clarify if it is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any other side effects. There is no mention of rate limits, cost, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence which is concise but omits potentially useful context. It could be more structured, e.g., with a brief note on what metrics are included or how to use the parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter details, but the description fails to synthesize a complete picture for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. While the description labels it as 'metrics for a bulk list of keywords,' it does not elaborate on parameter meanings or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves metrics for a bulk list of keywords. The title 'Export Keywords Metrics' aligns well. However, it could better differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainKeywords which retrieves keywords for a domain rather than metrics on a provided list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as DATA_getDomainKeywords or DATA_getRelatedKeywords. The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states it's a data tool that fetches data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it includes the redundant prefix 'Data Tool:' and lacks structured information. It could be more informative without being longer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain what 'domain overview by database' entails, how the parameters interact (e.g., url vs domain), or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema adequately documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch domain overview by database') and includes the API endpoint. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like DATA_getDomainOverviewWorldwide or DATA_getDomainOverviewHistory, leaving ambiguity about what 'by database' specifically means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or when to choose other domain overview tools from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states returns historical values but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as data retention limits, rate limits, error handling for invalid targets, or whether it requires authentication. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise, but arguably too brief. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important details that would improve usefulness without adding significant length. The conciseness is acceptable but not optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the output structure (e.g., 'returns time series of InLink Rank scores'). As is, it only says 'information about the historical values,' which is vague. Tool has 4 parameters and is one of many similar data tools, making this incompleteness a gap for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional context beyond the schema; it only restates that the tool returns historical values. No parameter-specific guidance is provided, but the schema itself is sufficient for basic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns historical InLink Rank values for a target page. Verb 'returns information' is specific, and 'historical values of InLink Rank' distinguishes it from sibling tools like DATA_getPageAuthority (current value) and DATA_getDomainAuthorityHistory (domain-level). Could more explicitly contrast with similar siblings, but purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DATA_getPageAuthority or DATA_getDomainAuthorityHistory. No mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The tool's applicability is implied only by its name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description should disclose behavioral traits; it only states basic purpose, omitting pagination, return format, or mutation status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but too brief for a tool with 23 parameters; could benefit from structured details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many parameters, no output schema), the description lacks information about response format, pagination behavior, or filtering capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves similar keywords from a seed keyword, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like getRelatedKeywords or getLongTailKeywords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it changes the title, but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it overwrite the previous title permanently? Is there a revision history?), idempotency, or what happens if the audit does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a redundant 'Data Tool:' prefix, making it efficient but lacking structure. It could be improved by removing the prefix and adding bullet points or formatting for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, validation rules (e.g., title length beyond schema maxLength), or error conditions, leaving the agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It offers no additional formatting, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'changes' and the resource 'title of an existing website audit report'. It is straightforward and distinguishes the tool from sibling read and delete tools, though it does not explicitly highlight that it updates an existing audit rather than creates a new one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an audit must exist or what prerequisites are needed. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Manually set position' without disclosing side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, reversibility, impact on keyword history) or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 5 required parameters. While front-loaded, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior or expected results. It does not, leaving agents to infer outcomes. The description is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'set' and resource 'position for a project's keyword'. It distinguishes the tool as manual setting, contrasting with potential automatic checks like PROJECT_runPositionCheck, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_runPositionCheck. No prerequisites or scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the target is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 18 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool having 16 parameters, no output schema, and complex filtering/sorting features, the description provides minimal context. It does not mention pagination, volume, filtering capabilities, or the nature of the returned data, leaving the agent dependent solely on the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 16 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves a list of prompts') and the resource ('that mention the specified target in AI search results'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'DATA_getAiPromptsByBrand' by using 'target' instead of 'brand', though it could explicitly call out the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'DATA_getAiPromptsByBrand' or 'DATA_getAiOverview'. No mention of prerequisites or context for the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The phrase 'comprehensive list' is vague and does not clarify if all backlinks are returned or limited (though limit parameter is present).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence (16 words). However, it starts with 'Data Tool:' which is redundant and wastes space. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be slightly more efficient without the prefix.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 17 parameters and many siblings, the description is too terse. It does not explain the return value format (though output param handles it), typical use cases, or how to effectively leverage the filters. For such complex tools, more context is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'extensive filtering and sorting options,' which is generic. The individual parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed, so the description provides negligible additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive list of backlinks with filtering/sorting. The verb 'retrieves' and resource 'backlinks' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like DATA_getBacklinksRaw or DATA_getBacklinksCount, which might return similar data, so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or what scenarios are best suited for this tool. For instance, if a user only needs backlinks count, a sibling tool might be more efficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination but lacks information on read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, though it includes an unnecessary 'Data Tool:' prefix. It conveys the main purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not clarify the return format beyond 'list of URLs'. With siblings covering many similar tools, more detail about pagination and expected response would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already describes each parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a paginated list of URLs affected by a specific issue within an audit. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling DATA_getIssuesByUrl which does the opposite. However, the 'Data Tool:' prefix is redundant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DATA_getIssuesByUrl or other audit tools. The description only states what the tool does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions batch requests but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has rate limits. The term 'Data Tool' weakly implies read-only, but it's not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns key statistics'). No fluff. Could be slightly more structured but overall concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'key statistics' but does not list them, leaving ambiguity. For a tool with 3 parameters and batch support, more detail on output structure is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the concept of batch requests via 'target' array, which goes beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns key statistics like backlinks count and referring domains, with batch support. The verb 'returns' and resource 'key statistics' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getBacklinksCount or DATA_getBacklinksSummary, which may overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getBacklinksCount (just count) or getBacklinksRefDomains (only ref domains). The description implies it's for summary stats but lacks when-not and alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'retrieves a summary' without specifying what metrics are included, whether it is read-only, or any other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the tool category and purpose. It is concise but could include more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling backlink tools and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the summary contains or how it differs from similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a summary of backlink metrics for targets, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getBacklinksMetrics or DATA_getBacklinksCount.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other backlink tools. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The phrase 'Data Tool' weakly implies read-only, but this is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is very minimal. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., structure, data fields). Given the tool's four parameters, more context is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully explains each parameter. The description adds no further clarification beyond what is already in the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves an aggregated worldwide overview of domain metrics. It is specific with verb and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainOverviewDatabases or DATA_getDomainOverviewHistory, though the name provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios for which this tool is best suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states retrieval but omits traits like read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no waste. It could be more structured but is appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, or filtering behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meeting baseline. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves long-tail variations for a seed keyword, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like getRelatedKeywords or getSimilarKeywords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Returns information', omitting details like whether it's read-only, permission needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, not verbose, but lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It is adequate but not optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify defaults, limits, and output format. It fails to do so, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), yet the description adds no meaning to parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain mode, limit, or order_by.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns information about IPv4 addresses belonging to backlinks pointing to a target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like DATA_getAllBacklinks or DATA_getBacklinksRefDomains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or the extensive filtering capabilities implied by the schema. The agent is left uninformed about these important aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence, but it could include more useful information without becoming overly long. The front-loaded structure is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 23 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to mention the rich filtering, sorting, and pagination options, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves semantically related keywords for a seed keyword. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getSimilarKeywords, the mention of 'semantically related' provides enough specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getSimilarKeywords or DATA_getDomainKeywords. The description lacks context on typical use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Only mentions batch support; does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. Could be slightly more structured but effective for short description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description lacks explanation of return values or behavior for edge cases. Schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'Supports batch requests' which hints at array targets described in schema, but does not add significant new meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Returns' and resource 'number of unique domains linking to a target', and mentions batch support. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like DATA_getBacklinksRefDomains, which may have a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context provided beyond the basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add new keywords' with no details on mutability, idempotency, permission requirements, error handling, or effects on existing data. The mention of 'new' implies no overwrite, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Only two sentences, no redundancy beyond the first sentence which repeats the requirement already in schema. Could be shorter, but it is fairly concise and front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return format, potential errors, or behavior under edge cases (e.g., duplicate keywords). For a write tool with two required parameters, more context is needed for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and there is a minor mismatch: description says 'project ID' but schema parameter is 'site_id'. This could cause confusion but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already defines parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('keywords to a project'), matching the title and name. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like PROJECT_deleteKeywords or PROJECT_addCompetitor, which would help an agent distinguish similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites beyond requiring a project ID (which is already in the schema). The description does not mention when not to use it, such as if keywords already exist or if the project is not accessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states it adds a group, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether duplicates are allowed, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the requirement and purpose, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and the tool is a creation operation, the description lacks details about success/error responses, side effects, or relationships to other tools like PROJECT_addKeywords.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is used to 'add a group for project keywords', which matches the name. It distinguishes from siblings like PROJECT_listKeywordGroups and PROJECT_updateKeywordGroup by specifying the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires a project ID', which is a prerequisite, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Delete a project' but omits critical details: whether deletion is permanent, what related data (e.g., keywords, competitors) is affected, or if any permissions are needed. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one short sentence, front-loading the core action. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks information about return values, irreversibility, and side effects. Given the absence of annotations, more context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'site_id', and the schema already describes it as 'Unique site ID to delete'. The description adds 'Requires a project ID' but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The name and description clearly state the tool deletes a project. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools like PROJECT_deleteKeywordGroup by the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite (requires a project ID) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_deleteProjectGroup or when not to use it. No exclusions or contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. It only says 'Get statistics on the positions', omitting details like whether data is aggregated, how filtering works (date, engine), mutability (likely read-only), or response structure. The lack of output schema exacerbates this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) and includes a prefix for context. However, the first sentence ('Project Tool: Requires a competitor ID') is redundant with the required parameter in the schema, making it slightly less concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (including optional filters like date range and SERP features) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'statistics' are returned or how filtering works, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minor context ('competitor keywords that were added to the project') not fully captured in schema descriptions, raising the value slightly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves statistics on competitor keyword positions within a project, which distinguishes it from siblings like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10 (likely top positions only) and PROJECT_getAllCompetitorsMetrics (metrics for all competitors). However, it could more explicitly define 'statistics' and the scope (e.g., date range, search engine).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a competitor ID') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10 or PROJECT_getCompetitorTop100. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or read-only nature, leaving behavioral traits opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and includes a key requirement. It is efficient but could integrate more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not clarify what 'TOP 10 results' entails (e.g., positions, domains). For a tool with four required parameters, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'keyword_id' as a query ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a list of TOP 10 results for tracked keywords in a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop100 and PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions, but could be more precise about the nature of the results.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as PROJECT_getCompetitorTop100 or PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions. The description only notes that it is a project tool requiring a site_id, missing explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It only states the basic function without disclosing traits like read-only nature, pagination, error conditions, or performance. The description is insufficient for a no-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but includes a redundant note about requiring a project ID (already in schema). It is front-loaded with 'Project Tool' but could be more concise. No severe bloat, but room for improvement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return format or pagination. It does not. The tool retrieves results for multiple keywords but the description is vague about structure. Incomplete for agent to infer full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description introduces ambiguity by suggesting a fixed 'top 100' while the 'top' parameter allows configuration (0..100). It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and slightly misleads about the default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves top 100 results for tracked keywords in a project, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'list of top 100 results'. It distinguishes from sibling PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10 by specifying the count (100 vs 10).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions a prerequisite (requires project ID) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10 or other SERP tools. No exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies read-only operation ('Get') but gives no details on safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded prerequisite and clear action. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, description omits return values, aggregation details, pagination, or what 'keyword ranking statistics' includes. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds minimal new meaning. 'Specified time period' loosely aligns with date params but doesn't clarify format or usage beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (Get) and resource (keyword ranking statistics) and specifies time period. However, it doesn't differentiate from many sibling tools that also retrieve data, limiting distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites beyond 'Requires a project ID' (which is not in params), and no when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond stating it is a 'get' operation. Without annotations, it does not disclose read-only nature, authorization needs, error handling, or the relationship between project ID and site_id. The agent is left to infer safety and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences, with key information front-loaded ('Project Tool: Requires a project ID.'). Every word serves a purpose, though the project ID reference may be slightly misleading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, clarify the project vs site_id discrepancy, or provide sufficient context for proper invocation. The agent may misinterpret the required input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description 'Unique website ID' is provided. The description adds a redundant statement about requiring a project ID but does not clarify the mismatch with site_id. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description adds minimal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a list of search engines employed by a project, using a specific verb and resource. However, there is a slight inconsistency: the description mentions 'requires a project ID' but the input schema parameter is named 'site_id', not 'project_id', which may cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_addSearchEngine or DATA_getSearchEngines. There is no explicit context for when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites beyond the implied site_id requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only says 'Update' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or behavior on failure. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and to the point, but the phrase 'Requires a project ID' is potentially misleading and could be omitted for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description should clarify prerequisites (e.g., does the group exist?), return behavior, or error cases. It does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already defines. Baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates the name of a keyword group. The mention of 'Requires a project ID' is confusing as no such parameter exists in the schema, but the main action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_createKeywordGroup or PROJECT_deleteKeywordGroup. No explicit context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral disclosure beyond indicating mutation. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility, which is a gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and gets to the point, but lacks structural elements like bullet points or front-loading of key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite high schema coverage, the description is too brief for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain common usage patterns or behavior when optional parameters are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 90%, so the schema adequately documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool updates settings, providing no extra parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates project settings and requires a project ID. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like PROJECT_createProject or PROJECT_deleteProject beyond the verb 'update'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'change/update project settings' without specifying scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. It only says 'Rename a project group' without any additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with two sentences, but the first sentence adds little value. It could be more efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple rename tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, side effects, or how it fits with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, and the 'project ID' comment is slightly inaccurate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renames a project group, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings. However, it says 'Requires a project ID' while the required parameter is group_id, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or deleting groups, or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes async behavior and task ID, but lacks details on rate limits, data volume limits, or how to use the task ID (e.g., referencing DATA_getBacklinksExportStatus). No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with 14 words, front-loaded purpose, zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing critical context for an async tool: no mention of status-checking endpoint (DATA_getBacklinksExportStatus) or how to handle the task ID. Incomplete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'target' described). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Enum values for 'mode' are not explained, and 'target' remains vague. Compensation is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves large-scale backlinks asynchronously and returns a task ID. This specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from synchronous siblings, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative backlink tools (e.g., DATA_getAllBacklinks). The description does not mention prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes a read operation ('retrieves') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description has two sentences but includes the redundant prefix 'Data Tool:' which adds no value since the tool name already indicates it is a data tool. It is not overly verbose but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks an output schema and does not explain what 'full context' entails. For a tool with two parameters and many siblings, it leaves the agent uncertain about the return value and scope. More detail is needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('date' and 'audit_id') clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a historical snapshot of an audit run, specifying the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'historical snapshot of a specific audit run'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like DATA_listAudits which lists audits, and other audit-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit context for selection among many sibling tools that deal with audits and data retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether the check is synchronous or asynchronous, what side effects occur, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a 'run' action, critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is one sentence, very concise but lacks structure. Opening 'Project Tool:' is redundant given tool name and wastes prime real estate. Could front-load the core action more effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, description should provide more context. It does not explain return values, whether a job ID is returned, or success/failure indicators. For an action tool, completeness is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying the two modes (keywords vs. entire project) and requiring a project ID, but it does not explain the relationship between site_engine_id and keywords (schema notes that keywords overrides site_engine_id). Score at baseline 3 with marginal addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool runs a ranking position check for specified keywords or entire project. The verb 'Run' and resource 'ranking position check' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions (which retrieves positions) and PROJECT_setKeywordPosition (manual set) by implying an action, though not explicitly differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions requirement of a project ID and notes two modes (specific keywords or entire project). However, it does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions or PROJECT_setKeywordPosition, nor does it give exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks depth for a tool with 10 parameters. It is front-loaded but too brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context about return values, constraints, or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing search engine in a project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_addSearchEngine or PROJECT_deleteSearchEngine. No context on prerequisites or usage constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states retrieval, but fails to mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or data source characteristics. This is insufficient for a tool with 15 parameters and high complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly improved with additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain typical use cases, how filters interact, or what the response structure looks like. The complex filter parameters (e.g., filter_multi_keyword_included) lack any contextual guidance in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 since schema covers parameters well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves prompts where a specified brand is mentioned in AI search results. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of prompts'), and the brand parameter distinguishes it from the sibling DATA_getAiPromptsByTarget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as DATA_getAiPromptsByTarget. The description does not specify prerequisites, data freshness, or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch authority metrics' without specifying which metrics are returned (e.g., domain authority score, page authority score, etc.), nor does it explain authentication, rate limits, or response structure. The absence of an output schema worsens the gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., by noting what authority metrics include. Still, it avoids redundancy and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the large set of sibling tools, the description fails to fully equip the agent. It does not explain return values, contrast with similar tools (getDomainAuthority, getPageAuthority), or provide usage examples, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The parameter descriptions in the schema are adequate ('Target to assess authority...', 'Response format. Default: json.'). At baseline 3, no extra value is provided by the tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'authority metrics', and the scope 'target (domain, host or URL)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getDomainAuthority or getPageAuthority by emphasizing its applicability to any target format, including root domain, subdomain, or full URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as getDomainAuthority or getPageAuthority. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only mentions retrieval with sorting/limiting, but omits read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 21 words, front-loaded with 'Data Tool:' (slightly redundant). No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description underspecifies what the tool returns and lacks context on output format or behaviors beyond basic retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond stating 'options for sorting and limiting results,' which is already implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of referring domains pointing to the specified target'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that handle backlinks, anchors, or audits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DATA_getAllBacklinks or DATA_getBacklinksAnchors. Missing context such as prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions pagination but does not disclose sort order, rate limits, error handling for invalid audit_id, or whether the list includes metadata like crawl dates. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is mostly concise but includes the redundant prefix 'Data Tool:'. It could be streamlined without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not mention output format, ordering of results, or pagination details beyond 'paginated list'. Minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add extra context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how limit and offset work together or default behaviors. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a paginated list of all URLs found during an audit, providing a complete sitemap. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('crawled pages'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAuditReport or getAuditPagesByIssue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAuditPagesByIssue or getAuditReport. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, data range, or rate limits. It only states the basic retrieval action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence efficiently states the purpose with no wasted words, though it could include more context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, pagination details, or data range constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no new information beyond what is already in the schema, meeting baseline expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves paid ads for a specific domain, using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like getDomainAdsByKeyword.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of when not to use, and no exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. It only restates the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler, directly to the point. Could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so the description should hint at the return structure. It does not. Also lacks explanation of 'InLink Rank' or 'Domain Authority'. Minimal context given.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'target'. The description adds some context by listing acceptable inputs (root domain, host, or URL) but does not clarify how different input types are handled. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns information about the domain InLink Rank (Domain Authority) for the root domain of a target page. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like DATA_getPageAuthority and DATA_getDomainAuthorityHistory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for page authority and history, but the description does not mention when to prefer this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates it returns a histogram (read-like operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or side effects. The name suggests get, but no explicit confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, directly stating the core function. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing output schema and limited parameter documentation. Does not describe histogram details (buckets, range, return format). Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, with 'target' documented but 'mode' only described by enum values. The description does not explain what 'mode' or 'target' control beyond the schema's minimal description. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a histogram of Domain Authority for referring domains linking to the target. It uses specific verbs ('Returns') and resource ('bucketed histogram'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainAuthority and DATA_getDistributionOfDomainAuthority by specifying 'histogram'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getDomainAuthority or DATA_getDistributionOfDomainAuthority. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. The agent lacks essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key aspects like the tool's category or adding a brief note on parameter usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the response format, pagination, or limitations, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity about how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'organic or paid' which aligns with the type parameter, but does not clarify semantics of stats, domain, or source beyond what the schema already defines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('retrieves a list'), the resource ('competitors for a domain'), and distinguishes between organic and paid types. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like getDomainKeywords or getDomainAdsByDomain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on selecting between organic and paid modes. The description does not address prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it retrieves data but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or whether it is read-only. Adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief structured breakdown of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description does not explain return values or format. For a data retrieval tool, describing the output structure would aid completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves historical data for domain traffic and keyword rankings, which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on audits, backlinks, or other data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DATA_getDomainKeywords or DATA_getDomainOverviewWorldwide. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the function. Does not mention side effects, rate limits, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear sentence, front-loaded. No waste, but could benefit from brief elaboration on parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple count tool, it covers the basic purpose. However, lacks details on parameter usage and expected input format, which could confuse an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'target' has a brief description). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Mode parameter not explained despite being an enum with default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns the number of unique IPs linking to a target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like DATA_getReferringIps (which returns actual IPs) and DATA_getReferringSubnetsCount.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use count vs enumerating IPs, or prerequisites like specifying mode.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states it provides 'key details and statistics' without clarifying if it's read-only, pagination behavior, or rate limits. For a read operation, agents benefit from explicit safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence conveying purpose efficiently. No redundant words, though could be slightly more structured. Still earns a 4 for minimal fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should clarify return format. Only vaguely mentions 'key details and statistics'. With 5 optional parameters, lacks completeness on pagination, defaults, and response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds 'key details and statistics' but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves a list', resource 'website audits', and scope 'all associated with your account'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, or get single audit by specifying listing all audits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getAuditReport or getAuditHistory. Implied usage for listing, but no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or whether the deletion is irreversible. It only states the action without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no output schema, the description should mention return values or success indicators. It lacks completeness in guiding the agent on expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'search engine from a project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like PROJECT_addSearchEngine or PROJECT_updateSearchEngine.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It merely states the output (total number of top/bottom ads by day) but omits critical details such as authentication needs, rate limits, read-only nature, or return format. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the project ID requirement and then states the purpose. However, it could be more structured by briefly listing the core parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'top' and 'bottom' advertisements mean, how date filtering works, or the effect of keyword/site engine filters. The agent has insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The relation between 'project ID' and 'site_id' is unclear, and no additional constraints or formats are explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's action: it retrieves the total number of top and bottom advertisements aggregated by day. The verb 'Get' and resource 'ads stats' are explicit, and the scope ('by day') distinguishes it from other PROJECT_ tools like 'getKeywordStats' or 'getSummary'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a requirement for a project ID but uses 'site_id' in the schema, creating inconsistency. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the vague project ID requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, any authentication needs, or what happens on errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, but could benefit from more structured information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and description does not explain return format or example values, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers parameters with descriptions, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns standard comparison dates like yesterday and last month, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that return other types of data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or excluded cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'retrieves', implying a read operation, but omits details like pagination, data scope, auth needs, or whether it's destructive. The schema reveals pagination but the description adds no value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loading the core purpose. No filler words; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on output format, date range behavior, pagination, and interpretation of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'paid ads', scoped to 'a specific keyword'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getDomainAdsByDomain which is by domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getDomainAdsByDomain). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it returns a paginated list but does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no fluff and succinctly conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (including a nested filter array) and no output schema, the description should cover return structure, pagination details, and filter usage. It only mentions 'paginated list' without explaining offset/limit. The description is incomplete for an agent to effectively invoke the tool without additional schema parsing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. For instance, the filter array is complex but the description doesn't explain how to build filters. The description remains at baseline because it doesn't compensate for schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is clear: 'Returns a paginated list of every hyperlink discovered across the entire site during the audit.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('paginated list of hyperlinks') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on hyperlinks found during an audit, not other link types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other getBacklinks tools). The description only states what it does, not when to use it or when to avoid it. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for internal links only or all links, nor does it mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says returns count, but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, or any behavioral traits. For a data retrieval tool, minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. Does not explain return format (e.g., array of objects), default date behavior, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns daily counts of new or lost backlinks within a date range. This distinguishes it from siblings like DATA_getBacklinksCount (total count) and DATA_listNewLostBacklinks (list, not count).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like DATA_getBacklinksCount or DATA_listNewLostBacklinks. The description lacks context for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Returns information' without specifying whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief at two sentences, with the first sentence ('Data Tool:') being redundant. The core information is front-loaded, but the filler slightly detracts from conciseness. Overall, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and lack of output schema, the description should clarify what the return value includes. It mentions 'InLink Rank (Page Authority)' but does not specify other possible fields or format. This is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description; in fact, it says 'target URL' but the schema allows root domain or host, causing slight ambiguity. No value added beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns information about InLink Rank (Page Authority) for a target URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainAuthority (domain-level) and DATA_getPageAuthorityHistory (history), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getDomainAuthority or DATA_getPageAuthorityHistory. The description lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenarios it suits best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or behavior for invalid targets. The only behavioral hint is 'unique subnets/C-blocks', but overall transparency is very low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is efficient and front-loads the purpose. While concise, it could include additional contextual hints without losing brevity, but currently it wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with few parameters, so completeness is less critical. However, no output schema is provided and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., integer count, object). Basic completeness for a trivial tool, but could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (target has description, mode does not but enum values clarify). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides reasonable clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the number of unique subnets/C-blocks linking to a target, distinguishing it from sibling count tools like DATA_getBacklinksCount or DATA_getRefDomainsCount by specifying the resource type (subnets/C-blocks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getRefDomainsCount or DATA_getBacklinksRefDomains. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness. As a simple retrieval tool, some transparency is still expected beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with clear front-loading of tool category and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for basic usage. However, it lacks details on output structure or potential limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (q and country_code), so the description adds limited semantic value. It mentions the output includes location_id, but does not elaborate on additional fields or response format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'retrieves available locations for SERP analysis' and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing getSerpResults. However, it could be more specific about what a location represents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context that the tool should be used to get a location_id before running SERP queries with getSerpResults, but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool returns a list, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no results. The behavior beyond basic functionality is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but arguably under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters. It is front-loaded with 'Data Tool:' which is redundant. It earns a 3 for being efficient but lacking necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'new or lost' relative to a baseline, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the target needing prior analysis. The description is not complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not clarify how parameters interact or provide additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a list of backlinks that are new or lost within a date range for a target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like DATA_getAllBacklinks (all backlinks) and DATA_getNewLostBacklinksCount (count only) by specifying 'list of backlinks' and 'new or lost'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining new or lost backlinks but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., count tool, referring domains tool). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, missing details on pagination, sorting, limit behavior, or whether new_lost_type filters. The description does not add significant behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads 'Data Tool:' and states the core function concisely. It is efficient but could be structured with separate usage hints for better clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on ordering, filtering, limit behavior, and return format, which are important for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57% (4/7 parameters have descriptions), but the tool description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. For example, it doesn't explain mode or order_by options. The description adds minimal semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of referring domains with a specific condition (newly found or lost) in a date range. It distinguishes from siblings like DATA_getNewLostRefDomainsCount and DATA_listNewLostBacklinks by specifying 'list' and 'referring domains'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like count or backlinks tools. Usage is implied by the description of returning a list, but no when-not or alternative mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adds some behavioral context by stating history is stored for 14 days, but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded prerequisite and clear action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but description fails to describe what data is returned (metrics), pagination, or grouping. Leaves agent guessing about output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes parameters. The description adds minimal value by only mentioning site_id, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves data on sites ranked in TOP 10 for tracked queries, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like PROJECT_getCompetitorTop10.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only notes a prerequisite (requires site_id) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states it gets a list, lacking transparency about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. Every word is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but fails to describe the return format or structure. An agent would guess the output is a list, but specifics are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description superficially adds no parameter info, but none is needed since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all supported search engines, but does not differentiate from the sibling PROJECT_getSearchEngines, which may cause confusion. The name includes 'Available' but the description could be more explicit about its global scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getSearchEngines. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid project ID), or if the returned data is cached. The description assumes read-only but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each adding value: it identifies the tool's domain and prerequisite, and states its primary function. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'summary statistics' entail (e.g., metrics, time range), which leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's utility. Additional behavioral context is needed for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes site_id as 'Unique website ID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating that a project ID is required, which is already implied by the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves summary statistics for a project, specifying it's a 'Project Tool' and requires a project ID. However, it does not distinguish itself from other PROJECT_get* siblings beyond the 'summary' focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the prerequisite of a project ID but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other project-related tools like getAdsStats or getKeywordStats. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or response format. It adds basic context but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the key information ('Project Tool:') but could benefit from slightly more structure, such as a brief note on response format or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. However, it omits details like expected return structure or any filtering capabilities, which are typical for a list tool. The description is functional but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying how parameters affect the output or providing examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Get a list of keywords with target pages for a project.' The verb 'get' and resource 'list of keywords' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainKeywords or PROJECT_addKeywords, which also deal with keywords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getDomainKeywords or other PROJECT tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sorting and limit controls (already in schema) but omits details like pagination behavior, whether results are exhaustive, rate limits, or permission requirements. The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and to the point. Every word adds value: it identifies the tool category ('Data Tool'), the action ('Fetch'), the resource, and key features (sorting and limit controls). No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the output contains. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of URLs with counts) or error handling. The tool's role is clear, but for a data retrieval tool, the lack of output details leaves a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'with sorting and limit controls' but does not provide extra meaning beyond what the schema already offers. No examples or typical usage are included.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches 'site pages that have backlinks' with sorting and limit controls, specifying the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'site pages with backlinks'. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like DATA_getAllBacklinks (which returns backlinks, not pages) and other backlink tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or when not to use it. The only context is the tool name and description, which requires the agent to infer usage from its function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no mention of pagination). Still, every word adds value and it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 23 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how 'question-based' is defined, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying 'question-based' filtering, which is not captured in parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand result set semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves question-based keywords containing the seed keyword, distinguishing it from sibling tools like DATA_getSimilarKeywords which do not specify question-based filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as DATA_getSimilarKeywords or DATA_getLongTailKeywords. The description just states function without contextual selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as 'Data Tool' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 17 words, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks any structural formatting (e.g., bullet points) and does not emphasize key parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It omits information about output format (though schema defines 'output'), pagination limits, and potential errors. The lack of return value description is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The tool description restates 'sorting and limit options' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves anchor texts for backlinks to a specified target, with sorting and limit options. This is a specific verb-resource combination ('retrieves anchor texts') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAllBacklinks which return full backlinks data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when anchor text data is needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools (e.g., getBacklinksRaw, getAllBacklinks). No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves data, without mentioning if it is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a data tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 37 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention return format, pagination, or key usage notes. Users would need to infer behavior from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; all parameter details are in the input schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves keywords for a domain, specifying both organic and paid search. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainKeywordsComparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving domain keywords but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'crawls HTML', lacking details on destructive nature, rate limits, authentication, or what happens to the environment. The name 'create' suggests mutation, but no confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, clear and to the point. The prefix 'Data Tool:' is unnecessary but not harmful. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 3 parameters and a nested settings object with many fields, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not cover what the audit report looks like, required steps, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain how settings affect the audit, which could be valuable for a nested object with many fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it launches a standard website audit that crawls HTML. It distinguishes from the sibling 'DATA_createAdvancedAudit' by noting suitability for static and server-side rendered sites, implying the advanced version is for dynamic sites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives guidance on when to use this tool ('Suitable for most static and server-side rendered sites'), implying not for dynamic sites. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the sibling name creates context. A clearer when-not-to-use would improve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Identifies and returns,' which is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it disclose potential dependencies or limits, leaving some uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., returns a string), which is a minor gap. It mentions usefulness for AI search queries, which helps contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, resulting in high schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Identifies and returns the brand name associated with a given target domain, subdomain, or URL.' It uses a specific verb ('Identifies and returns') and resource ('brand name'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getAiPromptsByBrand, though the distinction is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes the tool is 'Useful for determining what brand name to use in other AI search queries,' providing a context for use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, such as directly using domain knowledge or other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the report contents but does not mention prerequisites (audit must be completed), side effects (none, read-only), or authorization needs. The agent cannot infer that this is a non-destructive read operation beyond the 'get' naming convention.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately listing what the report includes. No redundant or vague language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks error handling guidance (e.g., invalid audit_id) and does not differentiate from other audit-related get tools despite the sibling list. Adequate but with room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter audit_id. The description adds context that the audit must be completed, which is not in the schema description. This adds minor value, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full, detailed report for a completed website audit, listing included contents (health score, domain properties, broken down checks). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like DATA_getAuditStatus or DATA_listAudits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used after an audit is completed, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like getAuditStatus or getAuditHistory. With many audit-related siblings, guidance on when to use this tool is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states what the tool returns without disclosing behavioral traits such as data retrieval limits, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without extraneous words, earning its place with clear value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description provides basic understanding but lacks details about the return format or example usage, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, so some parameters ('target', 'histogramMode') are described but 'mode' lacks description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, resulting in adequate but not enhanced parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Returns information' and the resource 'distribution of Domain InLink Rank (Domain Authority)'. It specifies the scope 'of all the domains that reference a specific target', distinguishing it from similar tools like DATA_getDomainAuthority.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving distribution data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context that it requires a project ID and lists tags for domains/links, which is read-only. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with context and clear action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It could mention the output type or pagination, but it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description clarifies that the required 'site_id' parameter is a project ID, adding meaning beyond the schema description 'Website ID'. Schema coverage is 100%, but this extra context improves usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists landing page tags for domains/links, and notes it requires a project ID. It is distinguishable from siblings by name and function, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring a project ID. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the output (daily backlink counts) but omits details such as rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or any constraints on the target parameter beyond what is in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or verbose content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value format (daily counts). However, it does not address potential edge cases like empty date ranges or unsupported targets, but given the overall simplicity it is mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, with descriptions for target, date_to, and date_from. The description adds no new parameter-level context beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'mode' parameter or its interaction with 'target', leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a number of live backlinks for every day within a specified date range for a specified target. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from related tools like DATA_getBacklinksCount that may return aggregated counts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools. This is a critical gap given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the daily breakdown but does not mention data freshness, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no data is available. For a read operation, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and output structure (daily breakdown). It could detail output format more, but it is sufficient for agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (80%), and the schema already provides clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the number of referring domains that are newly found or lost in a date range, broken down by day. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like DATA_getNewLostBacklinksCount (counts backlinks) and DATA_listNewLostReferringDomains (lists domains).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for quick counts of new/lost referring domains, but does not mention exclusions or conditions where other tools might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states a prerequisite (requires project ID). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that convey the tool's purpose and a key requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and requirement. It could elaborate on the output format but is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema ('ID of the project') matches the description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists keyword groups for a project, using a specific verb ('Get a list') and resource ('keyword groups'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like PROJECT_createKeywordGroup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions a prerequisite (project ID) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_deleteKeywordGroup or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states it retrieves data, but omits any details about rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details about the return value format, making it somewhat incomplete given no output schema. It does not cover potential errors or limits, which may be important for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description adds some value by explaining the aggregated vs engine-specific behavior for the engine parameter, but does not enhance meaning for other parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'a high-level overview of a domain's performance in AI search engines'. It distinguishes between aggregated and engine-specific data, setting it apart from related tools like DATA_getAiOverviewLeaderboard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: returns aggregated data if engine is omitted, or engine-specific data if provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the behavior (checking status) and real-time nature, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any permissions or side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool type ('Data Tool') and purpose. It contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the input, and the expected output states without needing additional details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'audit_id'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Unique identifier of the audit to check.' The phrase 'specific website audit' is implied by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the real-time status of a website audit, specifying possible states (queued, processing, finished). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or analytical tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest related tools for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses batch request support but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or authentication needs. Basic transparency but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences that clearly state the purpose and the batch capability. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, all well-described in schema, but no output schema exists. The description does not clarify what the return value looks like (e.g., a count number). For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond 'supports batch requests', which is already implied by the target schema allowing arrays. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns the total number of backlinks for a target and supports batch requests. The name directly corresponds to the function. Among siblings like getBacklinksAnchors or getBacklinksSummary, this tool is uniquely identified by 'count'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'supports batch requests' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getBacklinksSummary). No exclusions or recommended contexts are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cursor-based pagination and returns all backlinks but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication. For a read-only data tool, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and pagination mechanism. Every word contributes value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description could provide more guidance on pagination flow or response structure. It is adequate for a simple listing but lacks completeness for complex iteration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description adds context by mentioning cursor-based pagination related to the 'next' parameter, but otherwise does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all backlinks pointing to a target using cursor-based pagination. It specifies the resource (backlinks) and action (returns), and distinguishes from sibling tools like DATA_getBacklinksCount or DATA_getBacklinksAnchors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for large datasets via pagination but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DATA_getAllBacklinks or other backlinks tools. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the target is resolved to PLD, which is a behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. However, it does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or what happens if no history is available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundant information. Clearly describes core functionality and key behavioral detail. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has 4 parameters with good schema coverage, the description does not mention return format, ordering, bounds, or pagination. With no output schema, more detail about the returned data structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, only clarifying PLD resolution which is already implied in the schema's description 'PLD is extracted'. No additional context for date range or granularity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns historical Domain InLink Rank values for a target domain and explains PLD resolution. This distinguishes it from siblings like getDomainAuthority (current) and getPageAuthorityHistory (page-level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for historical authority data but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like getDomainAuthority for current values or getPageAuthorityHistory for page history. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add' without details on mutation effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded key information. No redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects. Adequate for a simple add operation but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond context (site_id requirement, purpose). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds a competitor website to a project for position tracking. It identifies the required resource (project ID) and differentiates from siblings like PROJECT_listCompetitors and PROJECT_deleteCompetitor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use (adding a competitor for position tracking) and mentions the required site_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like PROJECT_addKeywords.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses JS rendering but lacks details on side effects, duration, or resource creation beyond 'launches.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. Could benefit from slight expansion but is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a complex nested settings object and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers core differentiator but leaves out guidance on settings and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters; description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'launches an advanced website audit that renders JavaScript' and specifies suitability for SPAs or dynamic content, distinguishing it from standard audit tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions when to use (SPAs/dynamic content requiring JS rendering), implying when not to use (e.g., when standard audit suffices). Does not explicitly name alternatives but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the action is permanent ('permanently deletes') and affects all associated data. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's destructiveness. A score of 4 is warranted as it almost fully compensates for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with 'Data Tool' for categorization and wastes no words, making it optimally sized for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action and its scope. It could mention the need to call listAudits first or confirm the audit_id, but the given information is sufficient for a basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'deletes' and the resource 'website audit report and all of its associated data', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, many of which are get/export operations or other delete actions on different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (like listing audits to get the audit_id), and no note about irreversibility. Users are left to infer usage context on their own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it 'Returns brand presence, link presence, share of voice rankings, and leaderboard' but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences that front-load the tool's primary function and outputs. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and a unique AI focus among siblings), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the kind of data it returns. It does not include return format details, but the absence of an output schema means the agent must rely on the description. The description could be slightly more complete regarding the exact data structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add significant value beyond the schema for parameters; it merely rephrases the purpose. Hence a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare multiple domains/brands in AI search engines'. It specifies the resources (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, AI Overview, AI Mode) and the outputs (brand presence, link presence, share of voice rankings, leaderboard). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on audits, backlinks, or keywords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the usage context: 'Use this for AI search comparison, competitor analysis, and visibility benchmarking.' This helps the agent determine when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns a 'detailed list' but does not specify output format, pagination, or required prior context (e.g., audit must be complete). The scope (single page) is clear, but other behavioral traits like data freshness or rate limits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input context and output type. It lacks details on output structure but is sufficient for a retrieval tool. Sibling tools are numerous, but the purpose is distinct enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (url, url_id, audit_id). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides about the parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a detailed list of all issues (errors, warnings, notices) for a single page within an audit. It uses specific verb 'retrieves' and resource 'issues', distinctly different from sibling tools like getAuditReport or getAuditPagesByIssue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a single page but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAuditPagesByIssue or getCrawledPages. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, what statuses are included, pagination, or rate limits, leaving agents with minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, directly conveys the purpose; front-loaded with 'Data Tool' prefix is unnecessary but not detrimental.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete, covering the basic function, though it could hint at related tools for clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters mean schema coverage is 100%; per guidelines, baseline 4 applies, and the description adds no further parameter information (none needed).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of all SERP tasks added in the last 24 hours, with a specific verb and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like DATA_getSerpResults.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, but the implied context is listing recent tasks; lacks direction for users needing task results or history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, data freshness, or side effects. For a read-only tool, it should at least hint at stability or caching behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks details about the output format or whether the list is comprehensive, but for its simplicity, it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none to describe. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'available regions' supported by 'Google search engine'. It distinguishes from sibling tool PROJECT_getAvailableSearchEngines, which retrieves search engines rather than regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a list of regions is needed, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses task creation, polling interval (5s), timeout (5 min), result types, and progress notifications. This provides sufficient behavioral insight for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and avoids unnecessary details. Every sentence serves a clear function: stating what it does, how it works, and what it returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the presence of 9 parameters, the description adequately covers core behavior but omits details about the return structure or parameter relationships (e.g., language_code, location_id). It is moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, 'result_type' is explained the same in both places.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a SERP query and returns results, specifying organic/ads/featured snippets for standard and all types for advanced. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like DATA_getSerpHtmlDump or DATA_getSerpTasks by mentioning task creation and polling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While it describes the result types, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other SERP-related siblings (e.g., getSerpHtmlDump, getSerpTaskResults). The usage context is implied but not contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the async nature and possible statuses, but omits details on error handling, authentication, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status check with one parameter, the description covers input and output adequately, though it does not address potential edge cases like expiration of the download URL.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the parameter with 100% coverage, and the description adds value by specifying the source of the task ID (from exportBacklinksData method).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the status of an asynchronous backlinks export task, specifying the exact purpose and distinguishing it from siblings like other data retrieval or audit tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a follow-up to an export call, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the comparison logic and diff modes but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is honest but incomplete for behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality and usage well. It covers the main use cases but could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination or return format, though those are in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'domain' and 'compare' by explaining their roles in the gap analysis, but it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'cols' or 'order_field' beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes and compares keyword rankings of two domains, with explicit modes for common keywords and keyword gap. The swapping advice clarifies how to get the reverse gap, distinguishing it from single-domain tools like DATA_getDomainKeywords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use diff=0 vs diff=1 and provides a workaround for the reverse gap. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like DATA_getDomainCompetitors, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for pairwise comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses that the task must be completed and returns binary ZIP data, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with front-loaded action: first sentence states purpose, second describes output, third gives use cases. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output, and usage context. Could add error conditions or data format notes, but sufficient for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already provides 100% coverage for task_id description, but the tool description adds context that the task must be completed, which is meaningful beyond what schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'raw HTML dump of a completed SERP task as a ZIP file', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like getSerpResults which return parsed data. It also states the output type and use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions usefulness for debugging, archiving, or parsing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like getSerpResults. Guidance is implied but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: status vs. full JSON return, cost of 10 credits for first call, and inclusion of all SERP item types. Lacks error handling details but adequate for a simple poll tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then timing, status, content, and cost. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers return types, timing, cost, and scope. Minor gap: no mention of error responses (e.g., invalid task_id), but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for task_id. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves status or advanced results of a specific SERP task, returning status or full JSON. It also specifies it returns all SERP item types, distinguishing it from siblings like DATA_getSerpTaskResults.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context that tasks take ~60 seconds and returns processing status, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for non-advanced results) or compare to alternatives like DATA_getSerpTaskResults or DATA_getSerpHtmlDump.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 launching a new crawl, implying a mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects like data overwriting or the impact on previous audit results. The behavior is somewhat transparent but could benefit from more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a data tool and states its core function. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention what happens to the existing audit data, but the core action is clear. The context of sibling tools is not conflicting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, stating only that the tool uses the same settings without elaborating on parameter roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it launches a new crawl on a previously completed audit using the same settings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like DATA_createAdvancedAudit and DATA_createStandardAudit by focusing on rechecking existing audits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for re-running an audit with the same parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. However, the context of sibling create tools makes it reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates the tool returns a list with statistics but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with front-loaded context ('Project Tool: Requires a project ID (site_id).') and no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers essentials. It could mention whether pagination exists or if statistics are aggregated, but it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes site_id as a unique project ID with 100% coverage. The description merely restates this, adding no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a list of all competitors with statistics and requires a project ID. It is distinct from sibling PROJECT_addCompetitor and PROJECT_deleteCompetitor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the requirement for a project ID but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_getAllCompetitorsMetrics or PROJECT_getCompetitorPositions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses return behavior (processing vs. full results), typical timing, and item type scope. Lacks details on error handling or authentication, but adequate for simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-sentence description: first states purpose, second explains behavior and alternatives. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple tool with one param and no output schema. Covers what to expect, timing, limitations, and alternative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter task_id is fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter info; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it retrieves status/standard results of a SERP task and distinguishes from siblings by specifying limited item types and naming the alternative tool for other types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear when-to-use (for standard SERP results), when-not (for other item types), and explicitly names the alternative 'getSerpTaskAdvancedResults'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![se-ranking-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TeamDay-AI/se-ranking-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TeamDay-AI/se-ranking-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![se-ranking-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TeamDay-AI/se-ranking-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TeamDay-AI/se-ranking-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TeamDay-AI/se-ranking-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server