keyso_get_report_simple_links_pages

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states 'Method: GET' and gives an example request URL. It does not describe response shape, pagination defaults, required authentication, or what 'popular pages' means in terms of returned data.

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 with the 'Популярные страницы' label, followed by method/path and a concrete request example. It avoids filler, though the terse snippet-style structure sacrifices some descriptive completeness.

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 a GET report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format, default paging behavior, and the meaning of 'popular' in this report. The single example is useful but not sufficient for an agent to confidently select this tool among 140+ siblings.

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 schema already documents all parameters, yielding a baseline of 3. The example URL usefully shows domain, sort, page, and per_page in context, but the description adds no semantic explanation beyond what the schema 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 labels the tool as 'Популярные страницы' ('Popular pages') and provides the endpoint path, but it never states a clear verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return'. This hints at the resource but is too vague to distinguish it from the many sibling link-report tools like links_backlinks or links_outlinks.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a long list of similar report_simple_links_* and report_simple_* siblings, the absence of any selection criteria is a significant gap.

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