keyso_get_monitoring_id_report

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 discloses the HTTP method (GET) and shows an example request, implying a read operation. However, it does not explain response format, pagination behavior, sorting details, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The example shows per_page and page, but without explanation, which is a 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 description is brief and front-loads the purpose, then includes method, path, and an example. It avoids fluff and is efficiently written, though it could be slightly better structured with explicit sections. The length is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It provides a basic idea of what the report contains (positions for a project) but does not explain the returned fields, sorting, pagination, or how to interpret the data. It also lacks guidance on selecting this tool over siblings. Schema covers parameters, but the description leaves out important usage context.

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%, so all 12 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by showing a real usage example, particularly for the searchSettings[] parameter with JSON syntax. But it does not compensate for any missing schema details; the schema is the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 action (получение отчета по позициям проекта) and resource (monitoring/<id>/report). It differentiates from the broader monitoring endpoints by specifying 'данные для таблицы проекта' and includes a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like keyso_get_monitoring_id_report_chart or report_compare, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides context (period, filters) and an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as the chart or compare reports. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites. The phrase 'данные для таблицы проекта' hints at the table view, but it's implicit.

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