keyso_get_report_simple_context_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only reveals that this is a GET request. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response contents, filtering semantics, or rate/limit implications, providing little beyond what an agent could infer from the schema parameters.

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 the example request is useful, but the Method and Path lines are largely redundant with the endpoint naming convention used across all sibling tools. This is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It never explains what the response contains, what 'base' refers to, what values 'filter' accepts (beyond a doc link), or pagination defaults, leaving critical information for an agent to discover at call time.

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 is 3. The example request URL illustrates how base, domain, sort, page, and per_page combine, but it adds marginal value since the sort format (`field|direction`) is already documented in the schema; no new semantic meaning is introduced for token, base_url, or filter.

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's core statement, 'Контекстная реклама - ключевые слова' (contextual advertising - keywords), is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. The Method/Path/example lines provide technical reference but never state what the tool actually does, what data it returns, or how the report is structured, leaving an agent to guess the endpoint's semantics from the endpoint name alone.

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 its many siblings, such as keyso_get_report_simple_context_keywords_byads or keyso_get_report_simple_context_ads. The example query implies domain+base inputs, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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