semrush_subdomain_rank_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond 'Get historical ranking data', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance transparency.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too sparse given the missing parameter information; conciseness should not sacrifice completeness. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not adequately cover what the tool returns or how parameters affect results. The agent lacks context about the format of historical data, date range, or default behavior, making it incomplete.

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 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool description also fails to explain the meaning of 'subdomain', 'database', or 'limit'. Without any parameter semantics in either place, the agent must guess, which is insufficient.

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 'Get historical ranking data for a subdomain' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (historical ranking data for a subdomain). The word 'historical' differentiates this from sibling tools like 'semrush_subdomain_rank' which likely returns current rank, making the purpose distinct and specific.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as 'semrush_subdomain_rank' or 'semrush_subdomain_ranks'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer.

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