keyso_get_report_simple_organic_sitepag_586cf11f

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only (GET), what data it returns, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It merely states the endpoint and an example call, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's 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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It lacks a clear statement of purpose or structure, jumping straight to method/path/example. It is not front-loaded with useful information; it is essentially raw API documentation, not a tool description. Efficiency without substance is not conciseness.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what the report contains, how to interpret results, how filtering works (beyond a vague link in the schema), or any other operational context. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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%, meaning all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond that. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters, and the description does not need to repeat them. However, it could have clarified usage context, but that is not required for this dimension.

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 is a bare phrase 'Органическая выдача - Запросы сайта' (Organic results - Site queries) plus method/path/example. It does not state a clear action or resource; it does not explain what the tool returns or what operation it performs. The example URL hints at listing site pages with keywords, but this is not articulated. It is vague and does not distinguish from many sibling report tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only provides technical endpoint details without any usage context.

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