keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only GET nature and provides a concrete example URL demonstrating filtering and pagination behavior, which is genuinely useful. But it omits response format, pagination semantics of the returned data, error behavior, and auth requirements — for an unannotated tool this is a noticeable 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?

The purpose sentence is reasonably front-loaded and the example URL earns its place. However, «Method: GET / Path: /ai_tracker/<id>/report» largely duplicates what the tool name and the schema's 'in: path (auto-detected)' already communicate, and the raw <br> HTML tag is noise. Length is acceptable but not tight.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, and a worked example but leaves meaningful gaps: no hint of the response shape, the filter parameter references a documentation section an agent cannot access, and there is no guidance on how this report differs from sibling report/mentions/chart endpoints. Adequate for basic invocation, incomplete for fully confident use.

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, and the description itself does not restate parameter meanings. The example adds real value beyond the schema: it shows the array query syntax (systems[]=6&systems[]=7), the special groups value «— без группы —», and how date_from, date_to, per_page, and page combine, none of which the one-line schema descriptions convey.

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 a specific verb and resource: «Получение отчета по упоминаниям промптов за указанный период с фильтрацией системам ИИ и папкам» — clearly identifies this as a period-filtered report on AI prompt mentions. The header «данные для таблицы проекта» adds placement context, and the GET /ai_tracker/<id>/report path reinforces the resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling endpoints like keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_mentions or keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_chart, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the header implies it feeds the project table, and the example query implies it is for period-based mention reporting with system/folder filters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_chart or keyso_get_ai_tracker_id_mentions.

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