keyso_get_report_compare_view_organic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the HTTP method and path, but does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other runtime behavior. The GET method implies a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 single useful example. Every part earns its place, though a slightly more structured layout would improve scannability.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination defaults work, what `base` means, what filtering is possible, or what authentication is required. An agent can copy the example but cannot fully reason about edge 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%, but the example URL adds practical meaning beyond the bare 'in: query' descriptions: it shows comma-separated domains for `incl`/`excl`, the pipe-separated `sort` format, and the use of `page`/`per_page`. It also gives context to the otherwise undocumented `base` parameter via `base=msk`.

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 clearly states 'Сравнение сайтов в органическом поиске' and includes the exact path `/report/compare?view=organic`, identifying both the resource and the specific organic view. This differentiates it from the sibling context and backlinks compare 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?

The description gives a concrete example query and states this is for organic search comparison, so the intended context is clear. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of `keyso_get_report_compare_view_context` or `keyso_get_report_compare_view_backlinks`, leaving the choice implied rather than stated.

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