semrush_subfolder_rank_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds the adjective 'historical' but does not disclose additional behaviors such as date range limitations, pagination, or any rate limits. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 6-word sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too concise for a tool with multiple parameters and many siblings. A slightly longer description with parameter hints would not harm conciseness.

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?

Despite many sibling tools, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what historical ranking data includes (e.g., time range, metrics), how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. The tool feels incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no information beyond parameter names and types. The agent is left guessing the meaning of 'database' (country code) and 'limit' (max results). This is a significant gap given the minimal schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'historical ranking data', and the scope 'for a subfolder'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like semrush_subfolder_rank (current data) and semrush_subfolder_ranks (likely multiple ranks) by specifying 'historical'.

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. With many sibling tools for subfolder data (rank, ranks, organic, etc.), the agent receives no context on when historical data is appropriate or how it differs from current data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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