keyso_get_report_simple_organic_concurent_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the method is GET and shows a path, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The example hints at pagination via 'page' and 'per_page' params but does not explain the behavior. This is insufficient for an API tool with no other context.

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 concise: a one-line title, method/path, and an example. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids fluff and gets to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., a sentence on what the response contains), but it is appropriately brief for the information it conveys.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal and does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the expected behavior. It does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, or any constraints. It also does not differentiate from the many sibling tools in the same 'report/simple' category. The example is helpful but not sufficient for complete understanding.

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 has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example that clarifies parameter usage (e.g., sort format 'pos|asc' and page/per_page), but does not provide deeper semantics beyond the schema. Some parameters like 'base', 'domain', 'page_url' are only described as 'in: query' or with minimal Russian phrases. The example adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for the lack of detailed parameter explanations.

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 'Органическая выдача - конкуренты страницы' (organic results - page competitors), which clearly indicates the tool returns competitor pages for a given page in organic search. It also provides the HTTP method and path, and an example URL that demonstrates the purpose. However, it does not explicitly describe the output format, but the core function is identifiable and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'concurents' (likely domain-level competitors) vs 'concurent_pages' (page-level).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any distinguishing conditions, such as 'use this for page-level competitors' or 'use the domain-level tool for domains'. The example shows parameter usage but no decision criteria. Given many sibling tools with similar names, the lack of usage guidance 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.