keyso_get_report_group_context_ads_facts_rid

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 does not mention return format, side effects, authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any operational details beyond an example URL. The method and path are given, but these are structural rather than behavioral. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it is not well-structured: it starts with a fragment, then gives method/path, then an example. The key purpose is not front-loaded clearly. It lacks a proper sentence structure and mixes unrelated elements. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains and how it fits into the broader report group workflow. With many sibling tools, it does not help the agent understand when to choose this endpoint. The example query hints at pagination and sorting but does not describe the result structure or use case. It is incomplete for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, including format details for 'sort' and pagination parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Contextual advertising - ads, unique facts of the group' which identifies the resource type but does not use a clear verb or fully describe the action. It relies on the tool name for the 'get' intent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like context_ads and context_ads_links by specifying 'unique facts', but the phrasing is fragmentary and lacks explicit action.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., keyso_get_report_group_context_ads_rid, keyso_get_report_simple_context_ads_facts). The only differentiator is the name and the fragment, which implies it retrieves unique facts for a group. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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