keyso_get_report_simple_organic_sitepages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, return format, rate limits, or any side effects. Being a GET endpoint implies read-only, but this is not stated. The description is purely mechanical (method, path, example) without behavioral 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 and front-loaded with the purpose, method, and path. It avoids unnecessary detail and includes a practical example. The structure is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the report returns, how to interpret results, or any operational context (e.g., required authentication via token). An agent lacks sufficient information to understand the tool's full behavior and output, making it inadequate for confident invocation.

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 all 8 parameters are documented. The description adds value by providing a concrete example URL that shows how base, domain, sort, page, and per_page are used together, clarifying format and combination. However, it does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as the meaning of 'base' or sorting options. The example is helpful but not extensive.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving organic search results pages ('Органическая выдача - cтраницы') and provides the HTTP method and path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like organic_keywords or organic_concurents, as it specifically targets sitepages. However, it is terse and relies on the name for clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only shows an example request, implying usage but not stating conditions or exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or comparison to sibling report tools.

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