keyso_get_monitoring_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only provides the HTTP method, path, and an example query. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only beyond the implied GET method, what the response shape contains, whether an API token is required, or any rate-limit/error behavior.

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 with the purpose, followed by method, path, and a concrete example. Every line earns its place, though the dash-fragment phrasing is telegraphic rather than a complete sentence.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description omits crucial context about what the 'state' response looks like and what fields an agent should expect. It is sufficient to construct the GET request but not to interpret the result or handle failure cases.

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 ids[], token, and base_url. The example request adds a concrete encoding detail (repeated ids[]= query parameters) that is not explicit in the schema, but it does not materially extend the meaning of the parameters.

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 the resource as monitoring state and the concept as 'progress of updating projects' ('Мониторинг позиций - прогресс обновления проектов'), which is enough to infer it returns update progress. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not name a sibling, but the state/progress framing differentiates it from the broader get_monitoring/list tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as keyso_get_monitoring or other state endpoints. The 'progress update' phrase implies a status-check use case, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routes.

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