Keyword SERP Results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only query, says nothing about API unit consumption (the cost note lives only in the schema), pagination, rate limits, or the fields returned per ranking domain/URL. Only the core purpose is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: it states the returned entities, the ranking context, and the keyword input. Every word 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, no annotations, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain return shape and cost/limit behavior. Instead it stops at the one-line purpose, leaving an agent unable to predict positions, result fields, or units consumed without opening the schema.

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%, with 'limit' and 'database' documented in the schema but 'phrase' given no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning — no mention of locale/database behavior, row-limit trade-offs, or the phrase format — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ('Domains and URLs ranking in Google's organic top results for a keyword'), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from relational siblings like semrush_keyword_overview or semrush_domain_organic_keywords, which an agent could easily mistake for this.

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?

'Instant SERP competitor snapshot' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the 17 sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the reverse-direction lookup (keyword → ranking domains) rather than the domain → keywords direction.

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