semrush_traffic_subfolders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one behavioral trait: the subscription requirement ('.Trends'). However, it omits other traits like rate limits, data freshness, or output format, which would be valuable for a tool with no output schema.

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 extremely concise at 9 words, front-loading the action. However, it is arguably too terse, sacrificing important details for brevity. Every word earns its place, but the description could be expanded without losing 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?

Given no output schema, 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and no explanation of output, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'traffic distribution' means, how parameters affect results, or what the return data looks like. The subscription note is helpful but insufficient.

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%, yet the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (target, country, device_type, display_date, limit). The description only mentions 'domain' implicitly through context. This is a major omission, leaving the agent to guess parameter formats and constraints.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('subfolder traffic distribution for a domain'). The mention of 'requires .Trends' adds a constraint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like semrush_subfolder_organic or semrush_subfolder_rank, which are similarly named but different in focus.

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. The only usage hint is the subscription requirement, but no explanation of when traffic distribution is appropriate compared to other subfolder tools. Missing explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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