get_domain_authority

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds valuable context about the cost ($0.01 USDC) and the data sources used, which go beyond the annotations. This additional context is useful for decision-making, though it does not disclose any potential rate limits or failure modes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential details (methodology and cost) without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and respects the reader's attention.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, methodology, and cost. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., a numeric score), which could be important for an agent invoking the tool. Given the annotations and simplicity, this is a minor gap but not detrimental.

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 input schema already fully describes the 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the burden. The description's mention of 'one domain' is consistent but does not deepen understanding of the parameter itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('one domain's open-web SEO authority'), and further specifies the methodology (Common Crawl harmonic centrality and PageRank graph data). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_domain_authority' by emphasizing the single-domain scope.

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 phrase 'one domain' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when a single domain's authority is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of an explicit guideline. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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