keyso_get_report_simple_organic_concurents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the HTTP method, path, and an example request; it does not describe the response shape, pagination defaults, required authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The GET method implies a read-only operation, but that is minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded: resource label, method, path, and a representative example. There is no filler or repetition, and the example earns its place by demonstrating parameter usage.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the report returns and how results behave, but it does not. The example query helps the agent format a request, yet the agent is left without information about response contents, error handling, pagination defaults, or the meaning of 'competitors' in this report.

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 input schema already documents all 9 parameters, with 100% coverage. The description adds a concrete example URL showing how base, domain, top, sort, page, and per_page are combined, including sort direction syntax. This is helpful but does not provide meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 resource as 'Органическая выдача - конкуренты' and includes the HTTP method and path, making it clear this fetches organic-search competitor data. It is distinguishable from sibling 'context_concurents' and 'group_organic_concurents' tools via the 'organic' and 'simple' path components. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', so it is clear but slightly under-specified.

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 many similar sibling report tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as report_group_organic_concurents_rid or report_simple_context_concurents. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the name, path, and the one-word label.

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