keyso_get_report_group_state_rid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a GET request for status, but does not mention that it is a polling endpoint, what status values may be returned, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, or any rate limits. The lack of output schema makes this gap more significant.

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: the purpose statement, HTTP method, path, and a concrete example are all included with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes practical calling information.

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 simple status endpoint, the description provides enough to make the call successfully (method, path, example). However, it omits what the response contains or how to interpret statuses, which is important since there is no output schema. It also lacks guidance on when to poll or how long to wait, so an agent is left partially unguided.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example URL showing a concrete rid value, but does not explain what rid refers to (e.g., a report group ID) or add semantics for token/base_url beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Статус обработки отчета' (report processing status) and specifies the HTTP GET method and path, making the resource clear. It is distinguishable from sibling data-retrieval tools by the 'state' path component, though it does not explicitly contrast with other status tools like keyso_get_clustering_state_uid.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after creating a report group via keyso_post_report_group or as a polling mechanism. The path implies a follow-up status check, but this is not stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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