keyso_get_report_simple_domain_ad_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the HTTP method and endpoint, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what data is returned, whether pagination applies, what 'ad history' covers, or any response format. This is too thin for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 scannable, with the summary line, method, path, and example kept to the essentials. There is no fluff, though the structure could be improved by front-loading a more explicit statement of what the report contains.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and it appears among dozens of similar report tools, so the description needs to clarify the response and selection context. It offers only a vague one-line summary and an endpoint example, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value, supported parameters, and how this differs from sibling ad-related reports.

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 adds mild value by showing `base=msk` and `domain=wildberries.ru`, but the description does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics 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 resource ('domain ad history') through the path `/report/simple/domain_ad_history` and the label 'Реклама', with a clear GET method. It is distinguishable from sibling report tools by the explicit 'ad_history' endpoint, though the prose summary itself is vague and could apply to several advertisement-related tools.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example request illustrates usage but gives no context about prerequisites, expected scenarios, or exclusion of sibling tools like context_ads or direct_ads.

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