keyso_get_monitoring_id_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: the HTTP method (GET), the path template `/monitoring/<id>/dates`, and the core trait that only dates with existing data are returned. However, it omits response format, error behavior, and auth prerequisites, which matters more given there is no output schema.

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 and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, then method/path, then a single example. Every element earns its place and there is no redundancy. The dash-constructed first sentence is slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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 read endpoint with 1 required parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, path, and example invocation. The main gap is the exact response shape, which is not described and there is no output schema, though 'all dates' gives a reasonable hint. The endpoint's simplicity limits the impact of this omission.

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%, and the schema's searchSettings[] description is already detailed (regionId, engine ID mapping, optional language). The description adds concrete value with a real request example, `searchSettings[]={"regionId":38,"engine":0}`, which clarifies the exact JSON string format for the query parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 specific resource (dates for position monitoring) and scope (filtered by region): 'все даты, по которым есть данные по фильтру регионов'. It distinguishes itself from the many monitoring_id_* siblings by being clearly about date availability rather than reports, limits, or entities. However, the verb is only implied, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling like keyso_get_monitoring_id_report.

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 use case is implied: call this to discover which dates have position data under a given region filter. The Method/Path block and the example request show how to invoke it. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, and no relation to sibling report endpoints is explained.

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