keyso_get_report_group_context_ads_links_rid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the HTTP method and path plus an example URL, but discloses nothing about response shape, pagination semantics, sorting behavior, or what data fields are returned for these 'unique links'.

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 text is compact and the example URL is useful, but it reads as a sparse noun-phrase header plus boilerplate method/path lines. It earns its brevity but sacrifices explanatory value.

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 moderately complex report tool, the schema covers all parameters and the example shows realistic usage. However, without an output schema and without any behavioral description of what the 'unique links' payload contains, an agent cannot anticipate the response.

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 all seven parameters are documented in the schema. The example request adds a little value by demonstrating sort (`cnt|asc`), page, and per_page usage, but the description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond that.

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 names the resource ('Contextual advertising - ads, unique links of the group') and the path/method make the GET action clear. However, it's a noun phrase rather than an action statement, and it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like keyso_get_report_group_context_ads_rid or keyso_get_report_group_context_ads_facts_rid.

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. With roughly twenty report-group siblings (context_ads, context_ads_facts, context_keywords, context_concurents, etc.), the absence of any selection criteria is a significant gap.

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