keyso_get_report_simple_keyword_dashboard

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and an example request, suggesting a read-only operation, but it does not describe the response format, pagination, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any other runtime behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by method/path and an example. There is no redundant prose, though it could add a sentence on expected output without becoming bloated.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not define the base parameter semantics, explain the dashboard fields, or give enough context to choose this over sibling tools. The example request is useful but only partial.

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 description adds an example URL with keyword and base=msk, which helps illustrate usage, but it never explains what 'base' means or which values are valid, leaving that parameter semantically vague.

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 the resource as 'keyword dashboard' and provides an explicit endpoint path, so an agent can tell it is a GET report about a single keyword. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many other report/simple keyword tools, and it omits what metrics the dashboard contains.

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 about when to use this tool versus the dozens of sibling keyword-report tools such as organic_keywords, context_keywords, or similarkeys. The phrase 'keyword dashboard' implies a use case, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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