keyword_rankings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, covering the non-destructive nature. The description adds useful context about output fields (positions, volume, URLs) and pagination (50 results per page), but it does not disclose potential result caps, rate limits, or the fact that 'all keywords' is limited by pagination. There is a minor inconsistency between 'all' and pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence plus a compact Args list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every line provides necessary information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults without additional value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and sparse annotations, so the description carries the burden. It covers the main output fields and pagination, but the 'config' parameter is ignored, the return structure is not described in detail, and the 'all keywords' phrase conflicts with pagination. More detail on response format and limitations would be needed for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains three of four parameters: domain (with example), country (two-letter code, default), and page (with results per page), adding practical meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'config' parameter is completely undocumented, which is a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get all keywords a domain ranks for with positions, volume, and URLs,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like keyword_research (which likely focuses on discovering new keywords) and seo_domain_overview (which presents an overall summary).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'use this instead of X' guidance. The description implies usage for checking a domain's existing keyword rankings, but it does not mention exclusions or alternatives among the many sibling SEO tools. This is acceptable but not clearly differentiated.

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