keyso_get_report_compare_view_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the HTTP method GET and the endpoint path, which indicates a read-only report call, and provides an example query. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any limitations.

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-loaded with the purpose statement, and the method/path information is useful. The example is somewhat redundant and contains a mismatched view value, making the overall structure less clean and trustworthy than it could be.

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 10-parameter report endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned comparison contains, how to authenticate, or when to use this tool instead of the sibling compare views. The schema covers parameters, but tool-level context is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The example query adds concrete formats for sort (`numwords|desc`), page, per_page, and the required incl/excl parameters. However, the example uses `view=organic` for a tool named and described as `context`, which undermines its usefulness and could mislead an agent.

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 opens with 'Сравнение сайтов в контекстной рекламе' (compare sites in contextual advertising), giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly identifies the context-advertising variant of the compare report, matching the tool name and the view enum. It does not explicitly contrast with the organic/backlinks sibling views, but the domain term is specific enough.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus keyso_get_report_compare_view_organic or keyso_get_report_compare_view_backlinks. The description states only what the tool does, with no selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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