keyso_get_report_group_context_keywords_rid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that this is an HTTP GET with an example request, signaling a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error cases, or what response the caller should expect, leaving key behavioral details undisclosed.

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 a resource label, method, path, and a concrete example request. Every element is relevant, though the brevity leaves behavioral and usage gaps.

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 large set of similar sibling tools, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the report contains, how rid relates to other report endpoints, or how this endpoint differs from the simple/group context keyword alternatives.

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 every parameter. The description only adds an example URL illustrating sort, page, and per_page usage, which is mildly helpful but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as context-advertising group keywords and provides the HTTP method and path, so an agent can infer it retrieves keywords for a group report. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', but the resource label is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling ad/domain endpoints.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as keyso_get_report_simple_context_keywords or the organic group keyword endpoint. The label only implies the general resource type without explaining when this endpoint should be selected over its many siblings.

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