keyso_get_report_simple_context_ads_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the HTTP method and provides an example URL; it does not disclose the response format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the endpoint is read-only. The GET method implies no side effects, but this is minimal behavioral context for an 8-parameter endpoint.

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-loads the category, then gives the method, path, and an example. However, the opening line is a label rather than a full sentence, and the example URL largely repeats the path, so the available space is not used to add substantive semantic content.

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, the description should explain what the report returns and any important call constraints. It only provides a category label and an example request, leaving response semantics, filtering behavior, and endpoint-specific selection logic unexplained.

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 query adds a concrete usage pattern for `base`, `domain`, `sort`, `page`, and `per_page`, but it does not clarify the meaning of values like `base=msk` or the `filter` syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 report category ('Контекстная реклама') and the resource ('объявления, уникальные ссылки') and gives the API path, so the topic is inferable. However, it lacks an explicit verb/operation such as 'retrieves' or 'lists', and it does not clearly distinguish this endpoint from closely related siblings like context_ads or context_ads_facts beyond the path component.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling report endpoints, nor any exclusion criteria. It does not mention that `domain` is required or when a user should prefer the report_group/context_ads_links variant. The example illustrates one call but does not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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