Multi-domain positions

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

Annotations are sparse, so the description's warning that the operation 'may consume SEO Intellect account limits' adds a genuinely useful operational consequence. It does not mention the async task/polling flow, but the schema's timeout_ms, wait_for_result, and task_id descriptions already reveal that behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The 'Upstream API tool: positions-multi' sentence is near-redundant with the tool name, but the cost warning is valuable and there is no filler.

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 schema is rich enough to convey the two call modes (create vs. continue by task_id) and polling controls, but the description alone does not summarize that workflow or describe a successful response, and there is no output schema. Still, the expected result (keyword positions) is fairly obvious from the name and first sentence.

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?

The context signal reports 100% schema description coverage, so the schema is the primary parameter source; the description adds only the high-level 'several sites or pages' notion that maps to moreurls/keywords. That is enough for a baseline 3 but no richer semantic guidance.

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 names a concrete action ('Check keyword positions') and a scope ('several sites or pages'), and the title 'Multi-domain positions' reinforces it. This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling 'positions' tool, which is presumably single-domain.

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

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

The scope phrase implies this is for multi-site/multi-page position checks, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the sibling positions tool or any alternative. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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