keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_dates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say 'Method: GET' and that it returns dates with available data, but it does not describe authentication requirements, response format, pagination, error behavior, or what happens when no data matches the filters. For a simple read endpoint this is somewhat informative, but still limited.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes method, path, and a working example URL. Every line contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 dates endpoint with schema-complete parameters, the description plus example is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, no output schema exists and the description does not clarify response format, sort order, or how the date list should be used alongside sibling report/chart tools. This leaves some contextual gaps for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing groups[]=— без группы — and systems[]=6, which demonstrates query array syntax and hints at valid group values. However, it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 identifies a clear resource ('AI Tracker') and action: retrieve all dates for which data exists under the AI/folder filter. The explicit path /ai_tracker/<id>/dates and example query help an agent understand the endpoint's scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling AI Tracker endpoints like entity or chart, but the purpose is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_entity, keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_report, or keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_chart. The example implies query parameters for filtering, but there is no mention of prerequisites, expected use cases, or situations where a different tool should be chosen.

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