keyso_get_report_simple_context_concurents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication, rate limits, or response format. The sample URL shows query parameters but does not explain their effects or any operational behavior.

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—a phrase and an example URL. While concise in length, it is under-specified rather than well-structured. It lacks a clear opening that defines the tool's action, and the example is not explained. This is not effective conciseness; it is simply minimal.

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 tool with 8 parameters, a required domain, and many sibling tools, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the report returns, how to interpret results, or any operational details. With no output schema, an agent cannot determine the expected response structure. It fails to provide the context needed for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the example URL merely mirrors the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 3.

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 is essentially a title, 'Контекстная реклама - конкуренты' (Context advertising - competitors), which restates the tool name without adding a clear verb or resource definition. It does not explicitly state that this returns a report of competitor domains for context ads, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like keyso_get_report_simple_context_keywords or keyso_get_report_simple_organic_concurents. The example URL hints at a GET request but does not clarify the purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 100 sibling tools, many of which cover context reports (keywords, ads, etc.), the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives. An agent has no way to know if this is the right tool for a given task.

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