keyso_get_monitoring_id_report_chart

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states GET, the path, and that data is aggregated. It omits response shape, pagination behavior, required dates, auth/token handling, and the endpoint is internally inconsistent because the example calls report-compare rather than report-chart.

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, but the opening line and the subsequent purpose sentence largely repeat the same chart-data idea. The example is useful yet introduces a mismatched endpoint, so the structure 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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin: it does not explain what the returned chart data looks like, how parameters interact, or what prerequisites exist. An agent would need to infer most call details from the schema and the partially inconsistent example.

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 schema already documents all parameters; the description adds little beyond an example query showing dateFrom, dateTo, per_page, page, sort, and searchSettings. This is useful context, but it does not materially improve on the schema 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 states a clear purpose: Получение агрегированных данных по позициям фраз проекта для графика, so an agent can understand it returns chart data for monitoring positions. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling monitoring report endpoints, and the example path uses report-compare instead of the declared report-chart, which slightly weakens precision.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as keyso_get_monitoring_id_report or keyso_get_monitoring_id_report_compare. The only implicit hint is данные для графика, but no exclusions, alternatives, or preconditions are stated.

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