get_domain_rank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the output fields but omits operational details such as read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and does not address potential side effects or data limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the output details. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 adequately tells what it does and what it returns. However, given the large set of sibling tools and the lack of context around the 'Domain Rank' metric (e.g., scale, range, or domain format), completeness is only moderate.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter with the description 'The domain to check'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the Domain Rank (authority metric) for a domain' and lists specific return values (rank score, backlink count, referring domains). This provides more detail than the name alone and helps distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_referring_domains or get_backlinks_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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools, nor does it give prerequisites or alternative suggestions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on selecting this tool over others.

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