Domain Overview

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cross-regional scope ('across all regional databases'), which tells the agent results are aggregate rather than single-database, but says nothing about API-unit/quota cost (a sibling exposes api_units_balance), rate limits, or whether the call is read-only.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the scope and payload come first, followed by the usage recommendation. Every clause 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 does the necessary work of naming the returned metrics, so an agent knows what it will get. It remains silent on response shape, unit cost, and multi-region result structuring, which is a minor but real gap for a paid API call.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'domain' and its example format. The description adds no format, normalization, or subdomain handling guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get'), resource ('a domain's SEO overview'), and enumerates the payload (organic/paid keywords, traffic, traffic cost, Semrush rank). It distinguishes itself from metric-specific siblings by being the aggregate view, though this differentiation is implied by the metric list rather than stated.

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?

'Best first call when analyzing any website' is explicit, actionable guidance on when to reach for this tool. It does not name the follow-up alternatives (e.g. semrush_domain_organic_keywords) or state any exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing rule.

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