keyso_get_report_ads_rsya

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the HTTP method (GET) and path, implying a read operation, but says nothing about response format, pagination behavior, constraints (e.g., groupingBy requires filter), authentication, or side effects. This is a major gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 short and front-loads the resource name, but it lacks structure and completeness. The example URL is a long, dense string that is hard to parse, and the overall content is under-specified for an agent. It is concise but not effectively organized for decision-making.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any important constraints (e.g., groupingBy only works with filter). The minimal text leaves the agent with insufficient information to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a concrete example URL that demonstrates the syntax for filter (using LIKE and OR operators) and shows how to combine sort, page, per_page, groupingBy, and filter. This goes beyond the schema, which only links to a documentation section for filtering, and clarifies parameter usage in practice.

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 is essentially a Russian noun phrase 'Объявления в РСЯ' ('Ads in RSYA') that restates the tool name without any verb or explicit action. It does provide the HTTP method and path, but fails to state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, filter) or how it differs from sibling tools like keyso_get_report_ads_rsya_domains_domain.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description simply gives a label and technical details, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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