keyso_get_report_simple_direct_domain

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 discloses the GET method and path, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the response format, pagination defaults, authentication requirements, or any limits. This is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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: a short Russian summary, then method, path, and an example request. There is no filler, and each line earns its place. It could be more helpful with usage context, but it is efficiently 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?

For an 8-parameter report endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks return-value information, pagination defaults, and any differentiation from semantically adjacent siblings. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not provide enough surrounding context for reliable tool selection.

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 even without additional parameter explanation. The example URL demonstrates realistic values for base, domain, sort, page, and per_page, but the description adds no semantic meaning 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 opens with 'Объявления Yandex.Direct по домену' (Yandex.Direct ads by domain), which clearly names the resource and the domain-based scope. It also states the HTTP method and path. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling report tools such as keyso_get_report_simple_direct_ads or keyso_get_report_simple_domain_dashboard.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The example request implies usage but does not explain when this endpoint is the right choice among the many sibling report tools.

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