semrush_competitors

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe read-only behavior. Description adds organic search context but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or data freshness. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

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?

No output schema and no parameter descriptions. Description fails to explain result format or parameter details, leaving significant gaps for a tool with three unannotated parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only implies the domain parameter but does not explain 'database' (country?) or 'limit' (number of competitors?). Agent lacks guidance on required parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get competitors for a specific domain in organic search,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like semrush_paid_competitors. However, it does not specify what type of competitors (e.g., top shared keywords) beyond the domain context.

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 guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. No mention of alternatives or exclusions. While sibling names imply differentiation, the description does not explicitly guide selection.

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