keyso_get_report_simple_links_outlinks__154bc0f2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint path, and states the result is outgoing domains for a specific domain, but it does not describe result fields, pagination defaults, or auth requirements. The example demonstrates a concrete call, which is useful, but behavioral transparency remains partial.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement, then method/path/example. There is no filler, no redundant restatement of schema fields, and every part contributes to understanding or invoking the tool.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify output structure and operational context. It only says 'исходящие домены c данными' and gives an example, leaving the agent to guess what fields are returned and how paging and sorting behave by default. This is insufficient for confident response handling among many sibling report tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a complete example URL showing domain=wildberries.ru&view=domain&sort=backlinks_count%7Cdesc&page=1&per_page=25, illustrating how to populate required and common optional fields. It also reinforces that the endpoint is domain-specific, which helps the agent understand the domain and view parameters.

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 a specific resource and task: 'Исходящие домены c данными по конкретному домену' and gives the exact endpoint path for outlinks-domains?view=domain. This is not a tautology and is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling keyso_get_report_simple_links_outlinks_domains, which appears to cover the same endpoint.

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?

The description is an endpoint specification rather than decision guidance. It never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as keyso_get_report_simple_links_outlinks_domains or keyso_get_report_simple_links_outlinks, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'по конкретному домену', which scopes the domain but does not address tool selection.

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