keyso_get_report_group_organic_concurents_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 reveals the HTTP method (GET) and a sample request URL with sort, page, and per_page parameters, but does not describe the response shape, pagination behavior, the meaning of the 'concurents' output, or any rate/auth constraints. For a data-retrieval tool this is minimal disclosure.

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 short and front-loads the purpose in one line, followed by method/path/example. It is concise but under-specifies; brevity here reflects omission rather than efficient density, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what data the response contains, how filtering works, what 'concurents' refers to in organic context, or how this differs from the many similar sibling reports. Incomplete for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.

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 7 parameters. The example URL does demonstrate the sort format (cnt|desc) and query construction, adding marginal value, but the description itself contributes no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 'Органическая выдача - конкуренты группы' (Organic results - group competitors) largely restates the tool name. It adds the HTTP method and path, but provides no substantive statement of what the tool actually does beyond what the name already conveys. Among ~30 report-group siblings, nothing distinguishes this from keyso_get_report_group_organic_keywords_rid or the simple variants.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain the difference between group-level and simple-level reports, nor between organic and context competitors, despite many sibling tools covering these exact distinctions. The only hint is the embedded path, which the agent must interpret itself.

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