keyso_get_report_simple_domain_dashboard

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the HTTP method (GET) and gives an example request. It does not disclose the response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs beyond the token parameter, or any side effects. For a read-only GET this is a minimal disclosure but still insufficient.

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 concise, front-loading the summary 'Информация о домене (Дашборд)' and then providing method, path, and an example. There is no fluff or redundant text. However, the structure is minimal and could be enhanced with headers or a clearer breakdown, but it is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool is severely under-specified. The agent cannot know what data the dashboard returns, how to interpret it, or what the 'base' parameter means. For a domain dashboard that likely returns a rich report, this is inadequate.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage), but the descriptions are minimal ('in: query', 'Имя домена'). The tool description adds an example with base=msk, hinting that 'base' might be a region code, but it does not explain its meaning or possible values. No additional semantics are provided for token or base_url beyond what the schema states.

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 says 'Information about domain (Dashboard)' which is vague. It does not specify what metrics or data the dashboard returns, nor does it differentiate from many sibling tools like keyso_get_report_simple_domain_ad_history or keyso_get_report_simple_top_domain_visibility. The endpoint path and example add little semantic clarity.

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, what scenarios it fits, or how it compares to alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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