keyso_get_report_group_domains_rid

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'Method: GET', which implies a read-only operation, and an example URL showing pagination params. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response shape — all unstated for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the HTTP method, the path template, and a concrete example URL. There is no filler or redundancy, though the example overlaps somewhat with the path template.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this description should compensate by explaining what the response contains and when to call the tool. It does neither. For a seven-parameter endpoint in a large family of near-identical report endpoints, this is under-specified.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's example query (sort=it50%7Cdesc&page=1&per_page=25) adds modest value by demonstrating the sort format and query parameter usage in context, but it does not explain any parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Домены в отчете' (domains in the report) and gives an explicit HTTP method and path template (/report/group/domains/<rid>), so an agent can tell it fetches the domain list for a report group. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many similar report_group_*_rid siblings (organic_keywords, context_ads, etc.), leaving that to 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools. With over a hundred siblings including many report_group_*_rid endpoints, the absence of any stated use case, precondition, or alternative routing is a significant gap. Usage is only implied by the resource path and name.

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