keyso_get_report_simple_context_keywords_byads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and path, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication (token), pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format. The example shows query parameters but does not explain how results are returned or any side effects.

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: one line of purpose, then method/path/example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides technical details efficiently. No redundant text, but it is perhaps too minimal, leaving out important usage context. Still, it earns a 4 for being concise and structured.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return structure, pagination limits, default values, or error behavior. The example shows pagination parameters but not defaults or response shape. For a report endpoint, an agent would need to know what data is returned. This is a significant gap, especially with no annotations to fall back on.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example URL demonstrating parameter usage (e.g., `base=msk`, `sort=pos|asc`), which slightly enhances understanding but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. It does not compensate for any gaps since coverage is complete.

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 'Contextual advertising - keywords by ad' and provides the exact path `/report/simple/context/keywords/byads`. It clearly identifies the resource (keywords) and the grouping dimension (by ad), distinguishing it from siblings like `keyso_get_report_simple_context_keywords` (all keywords) and `keyso_get_report_simple_context_ads` (ads themselves). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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. The description gives the path and an example URL but does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over sibling report tools. The need for `ads_id` is implied but not explicitly stated as a selection criterion.

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