keyso_get_report_group_context_concurents_rid

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 does reveal that this is a GET request with the path and example query parameters, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, authorization needs, rate limits, or how the 'competitors' data is derived. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotations.

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 follows a logical structure: domain label, method/path, and a real example URL. There is no filler or redundant prose. Although the opening label is vague, the technical details are efficiently presented.

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?

This is a report endpoint with no output schema, no annotations, and seven parameters, yet the description provides no information about the returned competitor data, how it relates to the parent group report, or what distinguishes it from similar context/organic competitor endpoints. The example query is helpful but insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The example URL adds a concrete illustration of sort, page, and per_page usage, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 is essentially a noun phrase: 'Контекстная реклама - конкуренты группы' ('Contextual advertising - group competitors'). It restates what the tool name already conveys without using a verb or stating what data is returned. The method/path/example provide technical routing but do not clarify the tool's purpose beyond the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as the organic competitors endpoint or the context keywords/ads endpoints. The example request implies usage but never states a selection condition, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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