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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what 'summary' aggregates. It implies a read but does not confirm read-only semantics or any auth/rate constraints.

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 no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the underlying ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are documented, so return shape and inputs are covered. Still, for a tool sitting in a dense cluster of keyword siblings, the description omits the differentiation an agent needs to select it correctly.

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 100%, so limit, offset, project_id, and search_options_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely maps 'ключам проекта' and 'выбранного поискового параметра' to the required IDs, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

The verb 'Получить' and the resource 'сводку по ключам проекта' are stated, which gives a basic sense of the tool. However, 'сводка' (summary) is undefined, and the description does not distinguish this tool from several close siblings like get_keywords, get_keywords_pages_summary, and get_keywords_positions_history.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names an alternative among the many keyword-related siblings. An agent must infer the choice purely by guessing.

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