keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it is a GET request returning aggregated data for a chart, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default date ranges, whether systems/groups filters are optional, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap even though the method is apparent.

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?

The description is short, but its structure is awkwardly front-loaded with a Russian fragment ('Трекер ИИ - данные для графика') followed by method/path lines, then a complete sentence and a long example URL. It is not verbose, but the example URL consumes space without much incremental guidance, and the title repetition does not earn 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?

For a simple GET chart endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the endpoint, method, and a sample request, and the schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage. However, it does not explain the response shape, chart series semantics, how pagination works, or whether a tracker must be started/built before calling, which an agent would reasonably need for a correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying systems values with named AI models (1=GigaChat, 3=DeepSeek, 6=OpenAI, 7=Grok) and showing the systems[] array format in the example URL. However, it adds little to date_from/date_to beyond 'start/end date of period' and does not clarify the groups parameter format (e.g., the example uses '— без группы —'), so semantics are not fully fleshed out.

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 description states the verb (получение/retrieve), the resource (aggregated data on phrase positions for a project's AI tracker chart), and the endpoint path. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_report (report data) or keyso_get_monitoring_id_report_chart (monitoring chart). However, the primary phrase is repetitive with the title and the first line is fragmentary, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 indicates that it returns aggregated data for a chart and shows a sample request with date range, pagination, and system filters. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_report or keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_mentions, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., tracker must exist or be built). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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