Domain Organic Keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully pins the scope to 'top 100' organic results, but says nothing about data freshness, credit/API-unit cost (only the schema hints at this), pagination, or permissions.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core scope statement front-loaded and the value proposition brief. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the main returned fields (position, volume, CPC, traffic %, ranking URL), which is enough for an agent to judge relevance. Minor gaps around cost and freshness keep it from a 5.

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 67% — 'limit' and 'database' are already documented in the schema, and 'domain' is self-evident. The description lists output fields rather than adding meaning to any parameter, so it neither compensates for nor extends the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Keywords a domain ranks for'), scopes it precisely ('Google's organic top 100'), and enumerates the returned fields. The word 'organic' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling semrush_domain_paid_keywords.

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?

'The core of any SEO competitor analysis' gives an implied use case, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative (e.g., semrush_domain_overview for a summary or semrush_domain_paid_keywords for the paid side). Guidance is inferable but not spelled out.

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