Ahrefs Domain Rating

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and external-source profile is covered. The description adds only the metric scale and a vague provider attribution, without explaining caching, freshness, rate limits, or version implications.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The trailing 'via getdr by Index Pages' is somewhat opaque but does not undermine the core purpose statement.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description only needs to state the metric and scope. It does that adequately, though it could mention caching or provider constraints.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents targets, fresh, and version in detail. The description adds little beyond repeating that domains or URLs are accepted, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the resource and metric: Ahrefs Domain Rating on a 0–100 scale for domains or URLs. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic lookup tools, though no siblings exist to differentiate against.

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?

It does not state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or any alternatives. The phrase 'for domains or URLs' only defines input scope, not usage guidance.

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