Domain Rank History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. 'Monthly' is the only granularity disclosure; there is nothing on auth/API-unit cost (relevant given the semrush_api_units_balance sibling), how many data points come back, latency, or whether missing months are returned as gaps. For a historical data pull with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource stated first and the use case trailing. No filler and no repetition of the title. It could arguably be slightly more generous with a route-to-alternative clause, but as written nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (rankings, keywords, traffic) but not the shape or granularity of the response, nor why the database choice matters. Adequate to call the tool, thin on what to expect back.

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 67%: months and database are already documented in the schema, while domain carries no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — it doesn't explain that months caps at 36, that database selects the regional index, or that a rank in one database doesn't transfer to another. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: 'Historical monthly rankings, keywords and traffic for a domain'. The 'historical' qualifier implicitly separates it from semrush_domain_rank and semrush_domain_overview, but the description never names those siblings or states the contrast explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Great for spotting growth or drops over time' sketches a use case, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no pointer to semrush_domain_rank for a current snapshot or semrush_domain_overview for a summary, so selection among the ~17 siblings stays ambiguous.

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