keyso_get_monitoring_id_report_compare

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 that this is a GET request returning aggregated comparative data, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, sorting defaults, required date range semantics, or what happens if no previous snapshot exists. The example request is helpful but doesn't cover edge cases or response format.

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: one sentence of purpose plus an example request. The example is valuable and front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place and doesn't waste words.

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 GET endpoint with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a working example, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on response structure, error cases, and how this compare report differs from other monitoring reports. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, a bit more context would be needed for full completeness.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds a concrete example URL showing how dateFrom, dateTo, per_page, page, sort, and searchSettings[] are used together, which adds some value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of the response or how parameters interact beyond the example.

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 агрегированных сравнительных данных по фразам между текущим и предыдущим съёмом' (getting aggregated comparative data on phrases between current and previous snapshot). It also includes the HTTP method and path, which helps identify the endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like keyso_get_monitoring_id_report or keyso_get_report_compare_view_organic, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage context: it's for comparing current vs previous monitoring snapshot data, and the example request shows how to call it. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like keyso_get_monitoring_id_report or the report_compare_view tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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